University  ,of  California, 

'& 


••r*,f_ll«/>ry  s-nd  Law  in  Columbia  College,  New  York 


[GHAEL     REESE 


THE 


HISTORICAL  EVIDENCES 


OF    THE 


TRUTH  OF  THE  SCRIPTURE  RECORDS. 


TV*  utv  yd,q  akrfal  navia  o  wad  ft,  TO,  v7iaQ%ovra' 

ia%il  dlCMpCWH  Tafa^tQ.  —  AKISTOTLE. 


(FOR  WITH    THE    TRUE    ALL    THINGS    THAT    EXIST   ARE   IN   HARMONY 
BUT    WITH    THE    FALSE    THE    TRUE    AT    ONCE    DISAGREES.) 


(TIME  is  THE  DISCOVERER.) 


THE 


HISTORICAL  EVIDENCES 

OP    THE 

TRUTH  OF  THE  SCRIPTURE  RECORDS 

STATED    ANEW, 

WITH  SPECIAL  REFERENCE  TO  THE  DOUBTS  AND 
DISCOVERIES  OF  MODERN  TIMES. 

IN 

EIGHT    LECTURES    DELIVERED    IN    THE    OXFORD  UNI 
VERSITY   PULPIT,  IN    THE   YEAR   1859, 

ON 

t%  §amj)tcw  Jmwtauon. 

BY 

GEORGE    RAWLINSON,  M.A., 

LATE   FELLOW   AND   TUTOR   OF  EXETER   COLLEGE  ;    EDITOR  OF 
"  THE   HISTORY   OF   HERODOTUS,"   ETC. 

PROM      THE      LONDON      EDITION, 
WITH    THE    NOTES    TRANSLATED, 

BY    REV.   A.   N.   ARNOLD. 


BOSTON: 

GOULD      AND      LINCOLN, 

59     WASHINGTON     STREET. 

NEW    YORK:    SHELDON   AND    COMPANY. 
CINCINNATI :  OEO.  S.  BLANCHARD. 

1860. 


Entered,  according  to  Act  of  Congress,  in  the  year  1860,  by 

GOULD     AND     LINCOLN, 
In  the  Clerk's  Office  of  the  District  Court  of  the  District  of  Massachusetts. 


KLKCTROTYPEl)  AT  THE 
BOSTON  STKKKOTYPK  FOUNDRY. 


EXTRACT 


THE  LAST  WILL   AND   TESTAMENT 


REV.    JOHN     B  A  MPT  ON, 


CANON     OF     SALISBURY. 


...  .  "I  give  and  bequeath  my  Lands  and  Estates  to  the  Chancellor, 
Masters,  and  Scholars  of  the  University  of  Oxford  for  ever,  to  have  and 
to  hold  all  and  singular  the  said  Lands  or  Estates  upon  trust,  and  to  the 
intents  and  purposes  hereinafter  mentioned;  that  is  to  say,  I  will  and 
appoint  that  the  Vice-Chancellor  of  the  University  of  Oxford  for  the  time 
being  shall  take  and  receive  all  the  rents,  issues,  and  fronts  thereof,  and 
(after  all  taxes,  reparations,  and  necessary  deductions  made)  that  he  pay 
all  the  remainder  to  the  endowment  of  eight  Divinity  Lecture  Sermons, 
to  be  established  for  ever  in  the  said  University,  and  to  be  performed  in 
the  manner  following : 

"  I  direct  and  appoint,  that,  upon  the  first  Tuesday  in  Easter  Term,  a 
Lecturer  be  yearly  chosen  by  the  Heads  of  Colleges  only,  and  by  no 
others,  in  the  room  adjoining  to  the  Printing-House,  between  the  hours 
of  ten  in  the  morning  and  two  in  the  afternoon,  to  preach  eight  Divinity 
Lecture  Sermons,  the  year  following,  at  St.  Mary's  in  Oxford,  between 


VI         EXTRACT  FROM  CANON  HAMPTON'S  WILL. 

the  commencement  of  the  last  month  in  Lent  Term,  and  the  end  of  the 
third  week  in  Act  Term. 

"Also  I  direct  and  appoint,  that  the  eight  Divinity  Lecture  Sermons 
shall  be  preached  upon  either  of  the  following  Subjects  —  to  confirm  and 
establish  the  Christian  Faith,  and  to  confute  all  heretics  and  schismatics 
—  upon  the  divine  authority  of  the  holy  Scriptures  —  upon  the  authority 
of  the  writings  of  the  primitive  Fathers,  as  to  the  faith  and  practice  of 
the  primitive  Church  —  upon  the  Divinity  of  our  Lord  and  Saviour  Jesus 
Christ  — upon  the  Divinity  of  the  Holy  Ghost  — upon  the  Articles  of  the 
Christian  Faith,  as  comprehended  in  the  Apostles'  and  Nicene  Creeds. 

"  Also  I  direct,  that  thirty  copies  of  the  eight  Divinity  Lecture  Sermons 
shall  be  always  printed,  within  tAvo  months  after  they  are  preached,  and 
one  copy  shall  be  given  to  the  Chancellor  of  the  University,  and  one  copy 
to  the  Head  of  every  College,  and  one  copy  to  the  Mayor  of  the  city  of 
Oxford,  and  one  copy  to  be  put  into  the  Bodleian  Library;  and  the 
expense  of  printing  them  shall  be  paid  out  of  the  revenue  of  the  Land  or 
Estates  given  for  establishing  the  Divinity  Lecture  Sermons;  and  the 
Preacher  shall  not  be  paid,  nor  be  entitled  to  the  revenue,  before  they  are 
printed. 

"  Also  I  direct  and  appoint,  that  no  person  shall  be  qualified  to  preach 
the  Divinity  Lecture  Sermons,  unless  he  hath  taken  the  degree  of  Master 
of  Arts  at  least,  in  one  of  the  two  Universities  of  Oxford  or  Cambridge; 
and  that  the  same  person  shall  never  preach  the  Divinity  Lecture  Ser 
mons  twice." 


PUBLISHERS3  ADVERTISEMENT 

TO 

THE     AMERICAN     EDITION. 


THE  present  work,  though  it  belongs  to  the  same  series, 
and  has  the  same  general  design,  with  Prof.  Hansel's  Lec 
tures  on  the  Limits  of  Religious  Thought,  deals  with  very 
different  materials,  and  employs  very  different  modes  of 
reasoning.  Instead  of  abstruse  inquiries  into  the  subtle 
conditions  and  laws  of  thought,  the  business  of  our  au 
thor  is  with  the  concrete  facts  of  history,  and  the  explicit 
records  of  the  past.  The  two  works  thus  represent  the 
opposite  poles  of  scientific  inquiry.  They  are  like  two 
buttresses,  built  up  of  different  materials,  but  of  equal 
strength,  on  opposite  sides  of  the  citadel  of  our  Christian 
faith. 

Mr.  Rawlinson  has  been  peculiarly  happy  in  the  facili 
ties  which  he  has  enjoyed  for  combining  with  his  own 
extensive  and  accurate  knowledge  of  the  literary  monu 
ments  of  antiquity  the  latest  results  of  the  remarkable 

(7) 


8  ADVERTISEMENT. 

discoveries  of  his  distinguished  brother  and  other  suc 
cessful  explorers  in  those  rich  mines  of  history,  more 
precious  than  of  gold,  which  have  so  recently  been  opened 
in  the  valleys  of  the  Euphrates  and  the  Nile.  Some  gen 
eral  knowledge  of  these  results,  as  confirmatory  of  the 
historical  accuracy  of  the  Sacred  Scriptures,  has  already 
been  widely  diffused ;  but  there  was  needed  a  thorough 
and  scholarly  work  upon  this  particular  subject,  which, 
by  combining  a  complete  survey  and  a  logical  method 
with  copious  specific  proofs  and  illustrations,  should  stamp 
with  a  more  unquestionable  certainty,  and  estimate  with 
a  more  critical  exactness,  these  reputed  confirmations  of 
Scripture  history.  This  is  the  task  which  Mr.  Rawlinson 
has  undertaken  in  these  "Bampton  Lectures;"  and  we 
are  confident  that  the  verdict  of  his  own  countrymen,  as 
to  the  signal  ability  and  success  with  which  he  has  ac 
complished  it,  will  be  fully  indorsed  by  his  American 
readers. 

But  it  would  be  unjust  to  the  author  to  intimate  that 
the  value  of  his  book  is  measured  only  by  the  skilful  and 
exhaustive  use  which  he  has  made  of  recent  discoveries 
in  the  East :  the  plan  of  his  work  covers  a  broader  field, 
including  all  the  testimonies  of  ancient  literature  to  the 
facts  of  Christianity,  and  the  veracity  of  the  Inspired 
Volume.  But  as  most  of  these  testimonies  of  Pagan, 
Jewish,  and  Christian  writers  have  become  familiarly 


ADVERTISEMENT.  9 

known  to  those  who  have  studied  the  Christian  evidences, 
the  main  interest  of  these  Lectures,  for  a  large  class  of 
readers,  will  probably  be  found  in  the  fresher  contribu 
tion  which  they  bring  to  this  subject,  from  the  recently 
deciphered  hieroglyphics  of  Egypt,  and  the  still  more 
recent  excavations  on  the  sites  of  the  ancient  cities  of 
Assyria. 

As  this  work  promises,  from  its  less  abstract  character, 
to  interest  a  larger  proportion  of  the  reading  public  than 
the  excellent  volume  by  Prof.  Mansel,  there  was  a  still 
stronger  reason  than  in  the  case  of  that  work  for  making 
the  valuable  Notes  intelligible  to  all,  by  translating  such 
portions  of  them  as  were  given  in  foreign  languages  in 
the  English  edition.  These  Notes  were  mostly  in  the 
Greek  language ;  and  the  translations  have  been  made  by 
the  REV.  A.  N".  ARNOLD,  who  was  for  many  years  a  resi 
dent  in  Greece.  The  translator  has  not  had  access  to  all 
the  Greek  and  Latin  writers  from  whom  the  author  has 
quoted  in  his  proofs ;  and  hence  it  is  not  impossible  that 
some  trifling  inaccuracies  have  resulted  from  the  want 
of  that  light  which  the  connection  would  have  shed  upon 
these  fragmentary  sentences. 

It  is  a  happy  omen,  that,  while  so  much  of  the  litera 
ture  of  our  times  is  marked  by  a  tone  of  infidelity,  and 
especially  by  a  disparagement  of  the  evidences  of  the 
authenticity  and  inspiration  of  the  Scriptures,  there  is  in 


10  ADVERTISEMENT. 

other  quarters  an  increasing  readiness  to  make  the  choicest 
gifts  of  modern  science  and  learning  tributary  to  the 
word  of  God.  The  eclipse  of  faith  is  not  total.  And 
it  is  an  additional  cause  for  gratitude  to  the  God  of  Prov 
idence  and  of  Revelation,  that,  even  at  this  remote  dis 
tance  of  time  from  the  date  of  the  Sacred  Oracles,  new 
evidences  of  their  credibility  and  accuracy  are  continually 
coming  to  light.  How  much  may  yet  remain,  buried 
under  barren  mounds,  or  entombed  in  pyramids  and  cata 
combs,  or  hidden  in  the  yet  unexplored  pages  of  some 
ancient  literature,  it  were  vain  to  conjecture;  but  of  this 
we  may  be  sure,  that  if  any  new  forms  of  evidence  should 
hereafter  be  needed,  to  meet  any  new  forms  of  unbelief, 
and  authenticate  afresh  the  word  of  truth,  they  will  be 
found  deposited  somewhere,  waiting  for  the  fulness  of 
time ;  and  God  will  bring  them  forth  in  their  season, 
from  the  dark  hieroglyphics,  or  the  desert  sands,  or  the 
dusty  manuscripts,  to  confound  the  adversaries  of  his 
word,  and  to  "magnify  it  above  all  his  name." 


PREFACE. 


THESE  Lectures  are  an  attempt  to  meet  that  latest 
phase  of  modern  unbelief,  which,  professing  a  reverence 
for  the  name  and  person  of  Christ,  and  a  real  regard  for 
the  Scriptures  as  embodiments  of  what  is  purest  and 
holiest  in  religious  feeling,  lower  Christ  to  a  mere  name, 
and  empty  the  Scriptures  of  all  their  force  and  practical 
efficacy,  by  denying  the  historical  character  of  the  Bib 
lical  narrative.  German  Neology  (as  it  is  called)  has  of 
late  years  taken  chiefly  this  line  of  attack,  and  has  pur 
sued  it  with  so  much  vigor  and  apparent  success,  that, 
according  to  the  complaints  of  German  orthodox  writers, 
"no  objective  ground  or  stand-point"  is  left,  on  which 
the  believing  Theological  science  can  build  with  any 
feeling  of  security.1  Nor  is  the  evil  in  question  con 
fined  to  Germany.  The  works  regarded  as  most  effective 
in  destroying  the  historical  faith  of  Christians  abroad, 
have  received  an  English  dress,  and  are,  it  is  to  be 
feared,  read  by  numbers  of  persons  very  ill  prepared  by 
historical  studies  to  withstand  their  specious  reasonings, 
alike  in  our  own  country  and  in  America.  The  tone, 
moreover,  of  German  historical  writings  generally  is 

l  See  Roll's  Preface  to  his  Comment  on  Joshua,  quoted  in  Note  XXIV.  to  Lecture  I. 

(11) 


12  PREFACE. 

tinged  with  the  prevailing  unbelief;  and  the  faith  of  the 
historical  student  is  liable  to  be  undermined,  almost 
without  his  having  his  suspicions  aroused,  by  covert  as 
sumptions  of  the  mythical  character  of  the  sacred  nar 
rative,  in  works  professing  to  deal  chiefly,  or  entirely, 
with  profane  subjects.  The  author  had  long  felt  this  to 
be  a  serious  and  a  growing  evil.  Meanwhile  his  own 
studies,  which  have  lain  for  the  last  eight  or  nine  years 
almost  exclusively  in  the  field  of  Ancient  History,  had 
convinced  him  more  and  more  of  the  thorough  truthful 
ness  and  faithful  accuracy  of  the  historical  Scriptures. 
Circumstances  had  given  him  an  intimate  knowledge 
of  the  whole  course  of  recent  cuneiform,  and  (to  some 
extent)  of  hieroglyphical  discovery;  and  he  had  been 
continually  struck  with  the  removal  of  difficulties,  the 
accession  of  light,  and  the  multiplication  of  minute  points 
of  agreement  between  the  sacred  and  the  profane,  which 
resulted  from  the  advances  made  in  deciphering  the 
Assyrian,  Babylonian,  Persian,  and  Egyptian  records. 
He  therefore  ventured,  at  the  earliest  moment  which  en 
gagements  of  long  standing  would  allow,  to  submit  to 
the  Heads  of  Colleges,  electors  to  the  office  of  Bampton 
Lecturer  under  the  will  of  the  Founder,  the  scheme  of 
the  following  Discourses.  His  scheme  having  at  once 
met  with  their  approval,  it  only  remained  for  him  to  use 
his  best  efforts  in  the  elaboration  of  the  subject  which 
he  had  chosen. 

Two   modes   of  meeting  the  attacks   of  the  Mythical 
School    presented    themselves.     He    might  make   it   his 


PREFACE.  13 

main  object  to  examine  the  arguments  of  their  principal 
writers  seriatim,  and  to  demonstrate  from  authentic 
records  their  weakness,  perverseness,  and  falsity.  Or 
touching  only  slightly  on  this  purely  controversial  ground, 
he  might  endeavor  to  exhibit  clearly  and  forcibly  the 
argument  from  the  positive  agreement  between  Scripture 
and  profane  history,  which  they  ignored  altogether.  The 
latter  mode  of  treatment  appeared  to  him  at  once  the 
more  convincing  to  young  minds,  and  the  more  suitable 
for  a  set  of  Lectures.  For  these  reasons  he  adopted  it. 
At  the  s>ame  time  he  has  occasionally,  both  in  the  Text 
and  in  the  Notes,  addressed  himself  to  the  more  im 
portant  of  the  reasonings  by  which  the  school  of  Strauss 
and  De  Wette  seek  to  overthrow  the  historical  authority 
of  the  Sacred  documents. 

The  Notes  have  run  to  a  somewhat  unusual  length. 
The  author  thought  it  important  to  exhibit  (where  possi 
ble)  the  authorities  for  his  statements  in  full;  and  to 
collect  into  a  single  volume  the  chief  testimonies  to  the 
historical  truth  and  accuracy  of  the  Scripture  records. 
If  in  referring  to  the  cuneiform  writings  he  has  on  many 
occasions  stated  their  substance,  rather  than  cited  their 
exact  words,  it  is  because  so  few  of  them  have  as  yet 
been  translated  by  competent  scholars,  and  because  in 
most  cases  his  own  knowledge  is  limited  to  an  acquaint 
ance  with  the  substance,  derived  from  frequent  conversa 
tions  with  his  gifted  brother.  It  is  to  be  hoped  that  no 
long  time  will  elapse  before  some  one  of  the  four  savans, 
who  have  proved  their  capacity  to  render  the  ancient 

2 


14  PREFACE. 

Assyrian,1  will  present  the  world  with  a  complete  trans 
lation  of  all  the  historical  inscriptions  hitherto  recovered. 

The  author  cannot  conclude  without  expressing  his  ac 
knowledgments  to  Dr.  Bandinel,  Chief  Librarian  of  the 
Bodleian,  for  kind  exertions  in  procuring  at  his  instance 
various  foreign  works ;  and  to  Dr.  Pusey,  Professor  Stan 
ley,  and  Mr.  Mansel  for  some  valuable  information  on 
several  points  connected  with  the  Lectures.  He  is  bound 
also  to  record  his  obligations  to  various  living  or  recent 
writers,  whose  works  have  made  his  task  easier,  as  Pro 
fessors  Kcil,  Ilavernick,  and  Olshausen  in  Germany,  and 
in  England  Dr.  Lardner,  Dr.  Burton,  and  Dean  Alford. 
Finally,  he  is  glad  once  more  to  avow  his  deep  obliga 
tions  to  the  learning  and  genius  of  his  brother,  and  to 
the  kind  and  liberal  communication  on  his  part  of  full 
information  upon  every  point  where  there  seemed  to 
be  any  contact  between  the  sacred  history  and  the  cunei 
form  records.  The  novelty  of  the  Lectures  will,  he  feels, 
consist  chiefly,  if  not  solely,  in  the  exhibition  of  these 
points  of  contact  and  agreement ;  and  the  circumstance 
of  his  having  this  novelty  to  offer  was  his  chief  induce 
ment  to  attempt  a  work  on  the  subject.  It  is  his  earnest 
prayer  that,  by  the  blessing  of  God,  his  labors  may  tend 
to  check  the  spread  of  unbelief,  and  to  produce  among 
Scripture  students  a  more  lively  appreciation  of  the 
reality  of  those  facts  which  are  put  before  us  in  the  Bible. 

OXFORD,  November  2,  1859. 

i  See  the  Inscription  of  Ti^lath-Pileser  /.,  king  of  Jtssyria,  B.  C.  1150,  as  translated 
by  Sir  Henry  Rawlinson,  Fox  Talbot,  Esrj.,  Dr.  Ilincks,  and  Dr.  Oppert ;  published  by 
the  Royal  Asiatic  Society,  London,  Parker,  1857. 


CONTENTS 


LECTURE   I. 

HISTORICAL  character  of  Christianity  as  contrasted  with  other  religions 

—  its  contact,  thence  arising,  with  historical  science  —  its  liability  to 
be  tried  afresh  by  new  tests  and  criteria,  as  historic  science  advances. 

—  Recent  advance  of  historical  science  —  rise  of  the  new  department 
of  Historical  Criticism  —  its  birth  and  growth  —  its  results  and  ten 
dencies.  —  Application  of  Historical  Criticism  to  Christianity  to  be 
expected  and  even  .desired  —  the  application  as  made  —  first,  by  the 
mythical  school  of  De  "\Vette  and  Strauss  —  secondly,  by  the  histori 
cal  school — Xiebuhr  himself — Bunsen.  — Intention  of  the  Lectures, 
to  examine  the  Sacred  Narrative  on  the  positive  side,  by  the  light  of 
the  true  principles  of  historical  science.  —  Statement  of  the  principles 
under  the  form  of  four  Canons.  —  Corollaries  of  the  Canons  —  com 
parative  value  of  sources — force  of  cumulative  evidence.  —  Further 
Canon  which  some  seek  to  add  on  the  subject  of  miracles,  examined 

—  possibility  of  miracles  —  contrary  notion,  Atheistic  —  peculiarities 
of  the  modern  Atheism.  —  Occurrence  of  miracles  proved  —  creation 
a  miracle  —  counterfeit  miracles  prove  the  existence  of  genuine  ones. 

—  Rejection  of  the  additional  Canon  leaves  the  ground  clear  for  the 
proposed  inquiry.  —  Two  kinds  of  evidence  to  be  examined  —  1.  That 
of  the  Sacred  Volume  itself,  considered  as  a  mass  of  documents,  and 
judged  by  the  laws  of  Historical  Criticism  —  2.  The  external  evidence, 

(15) 


16  CONTENTS. 

or  that  contained  in  monuments,  in  the  works  of  profane  authors,  in 
established  customs  and  observances,  and  in  the  contemporary  writ 
ings  of  believers.  —  Main  purpose  of  the  Lectures,  to  exhibit  the 
external  evidence ,  .25 


LECTURE  II. 

Two  modes  of  conducting  an  historical  inquiry — the  Retrospective  and 
the  Progressive  —  advantages  of  each  —  preference  assigned  to  the 
latter.  —  Plan  of  the  Lectures  —  division  of  the  Biblical  history  into 
five  periods.  —  History  of  the  first  period,  contained  in  the  Pentateuch 
—  question  of  the  genuineness  of  the  Pentateuch  —  argument  from 
the  unanimous  testimony  of  the  Jews  —  objections  answered.  — Writ 
ing  practised  at  the  time.  —  Heathen  testimony  to  the  genuineness.  — 
Internal  testimony  —  difficulties  of  the  opposite  theory.  —  Authen 
ticity  of  the  Pentateuch,  a  consequent  of  its  genuineness  —  Moses  an 
unexceptionable  witness  for  the  history  of  the  last  four  books.  — 
Authenticity  of  Genesis  —  the  events,  if  purely  traditional,  would 
have  passed  through  but  few  hands  to  Moses.  —  Probability  that 
Genesis  is  founded  on  documents,  some  of  which  may  have  been 
ante-diluvian. — External  evidence  of  the  authenticity  —  agreement 
of  the  narrative  with  the  best  profane  authorities.  —  Review  of  the 
authorities  —  preeminence  of  Berosus  and  Manetho  as  historians  of 
ancient  times  —  Egyptian  and  Babylonian  monuments  —  mode  in 
which  the  monuments  and  histories  have  to  be  combined.  —  Com 
parison  of  the  chronological  schemes  of  Manetho  and  Berosus  with 
the  chronology  of  Scripture.  —  Account  of  the  Creation  in  Berosus  — 
its  harmony  with  Scripture.  —  Account  given  by  Berosus  of  the 
Deluge  —  similar  account  of  Abydenus  —  the  difference  between  the 
Scriptural  and  the  profane  account  exaggerated  by  Niebuhr.  —  Post 
diluvian  history  of  Berosus  —  his  account  of  the  tower  of  Babel,  and 


CONTENTS.  17 

the  confusion  of  tongues. — Ethnological  value  of  the  tenth  chapter 
of  Genesis.  —  Heathen  accounts  of  Abraham,  Isaac,  and  Jacob,  de 
rived  from  Jewish  sources —  estimate  of  their  value.  —  Three  points 
only  of  great  public  importance  in  the  history  from  Abraham  to  the 
death  of  Moses  —  two  of  these  confirmed  from  profane  sources.  — 
Expedition  of  Chedor-laomer  agrees  with  Berosus,  and  is  distinctly 
confirmed  by  the  Babylonian  monuments.  —  Exodus  of  the  Jews 
related  by  Manetho.  —  Historical  arguments  of  importance,  which 
have  been  omitted  for  want  of  space  —  1.  The  argument  furnished  by 
the  conclusions  of  the  historical  sciences,  such  as  Geology,  Physi 
ology,  Comparative  Philology,  Ethnology,  &c. — 2.  The  argument 
from  the  correctness  of  the  linguistic,  geographic,  and  ethologic 
notices  in  the  Pentateuch  — >  modern  discovery  is  continually  adding  to 
this  kind  of  evidence  —  geographical  illustration.  —  Conclusion.  .  49 


LECTURE   III. 

The  period  of  Jewish  history  from  Exodus  to  Solomon,  comprises  the 
extremes  of  national  depression  and  prosperity.  —  Books  of  Scrip- 
.  ture,  containing  this  portion  of  the  history,  are  for  the  most  part  by 
unknown  authors. — Their  value  not  diminished  by  this,  being  that 
of  State  Papers.  —  Historical  character  of  the  books,  considered  sev 
erally.  —  The  Book  of  Joshua  written  by  an  eye-witness,  who  pos 
sessed  records.  —  The  Book  of  Judges  based  upon  similar  documents. 
—  The  Books  of  ^Samuel  composed  probably  by  writers  contemporary 
with  the  events  related;  viz.  Samuel,  Gad,  and  Nathan.  —  The 
Books  of  Kings  and  Chronicles  derived  from  contemporary  works 
written  by  Prophets.  —  Commentary  On  the  history  furnished  by  the 
Davidical  Psalms.  —  Confirmation  of  this  period  of  Jewish  history 
from  profane  sources,  during  the  earlier  portion  of  the  period,  rather 
negative  than  positive. — Weakness  of  Egypt  and  Assyria  at  the 

2* 


18  CONTENTS. 

period,  appears  both  from  the  Scripture  narrative,  and  from  the 
monuments.  —  Positive  testimony  of  profane  writers  to  the  conquest 
of  Canaan  by  Joshua — Moses  of  Chorene,  Procopius,  Suidas. — 
Supposed  testimony  of  Herodotus  to  the  miracle  of  the  sun  standing 
still.  —  Positive  testimony  to  the  later  portion  of  the  period  —  Syrian 
war  of  David  described  by  Nicolas  of  Damascus  from  the  records  of 
his  native  city.  —  David's  other  wars  mentioned  by  Eupolemus.  — 
Connection  of  Judaea  with  Phoenicia.  —  Early  greatness  of  Sidon 
strongly  marked  in  Scripture  and  confirmed  by  profane  writers  — 
Homer,  Strabo,  Justin.  —  Hiram  a  true  Phoenician  royal  name.  —  A 
prince  of  this  name  reigned  at  Tyre  contemporaneously  with  David 
and  Solomon,  according  to  the  Phoenician  historians,  Dius  and 
Menander  —  their  accounts  of  the  friendly  intercourse  between  Hiram 
and  these  Jewish  monarchs.  —  Solomon's  connection  with  Egypt  — 
absence  of  Egyptian  records  at  this  time  —  Solomon  contemporary 
with  Sheshonk  or  Shishak.  —  Wealth  of  Solomon  confirmed  by 
Eupolemus  and  Theophilus.  —  Indirect  testimony  to  the  truth  of  this 
portion  of  the  history  —  the  character  of  Solomon's  empire,  the  plan 
of  his  buildings,  and  the  style  of  their  ornamentation,  receive  abun 
dant  illustration  from  recent  discoveries  in  Assyria  —  the  habits  of 
the  Phoenicians  agree  with  the  descriptions  of  Homer,  Menander,  and 
others. — Incompleteness  of  this  sketch.  —  Summary 78 


LECTURE   IY. 

Period  to  be  embraced  in  the  Lecture,  one  of  about  four  centuries,  from 
the  death  of  Solomon  to  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem  by  Nebuchad 
nezzar  —  importance  of  this  period.  —  Documents  in  which  the  his 
tory  is  delivered.  —  Kings  and  Chronicles,  compilations  from  the 
State  Archives  of  the  two  Kingdoms  of  Israel  and  Judah.  —  Objec 
tion  answered.  —  Kings  and  Chronicles  independent,  and  therefore 


CONTENTS.  19 

confirmatory,  of  each  other.  The  history  contained  in  them  con 
firmed  by  direct  and  incidental  notices  in  the  works  of  contemporary 
Prophets,  Isaiah,  Jeremiah,  Amos,  &c.  —  Confirmation  of  the  history 
from  profane  sources.  —  The  separate  existence  of  the  two  kingdoms 
noticed  in  the  Assyrian  Inscriptions.  —  The  conquest  of  Judica  by 
Sheshonk  (Shishak)  recorded  in  the  great  temple  at  Carnac.  —  Zerah 
the  Ethiopian  probably  identical  with  Osorkon  the  Second.  —  Eth- 
baal,  the  father  of  Jezebel,  identical  with  the  Ithobalus  of  Menander 
—  mention  of  a  great  drought  in  his  reign.  —  Power  of  Benhadad, 
and  nature  of  the  force  under  his  command,  confirmed  by  the.  in 
scription  on  the  Nimrud  Obelisk.  —  Accession  of  Hazael  noticed  on 
the  same  monument.  —  Mention  of  Jehu.  —  Interruption  in  the 
series  of  notices,  coinciding  with  an  absence  of  documents. — Pul, 
or  Phul,  (tfo^ur^,)  mentioned  by  Berosus,  and  probably  identified  with 
a  monumental  king,  who  takes  tribute  from  Samaria.  —  War  of 
Tiglath-Pileser  with  Samaria  and  Damascus  recorded  in  an  As 
syrian  inscription.  —  Altar  of  Ahaz  probably  a  sign  of  sub 
jection.  —  Shalmanezer's  Syrian  war  mentioned  by  Menander.  — 
Name  of  Iloshea  on  an  Assyrian  inscription  probably  assigned  to 
him.  —  Capture  of  Samaria  ascribed  to  Sargon  on  the  monuments.  — 
Harmony  of  the  narrative  with  Scripture.  —  Sargon's  capture  of 
Ashdod,  and  successful  attack  on  Egypt.  —  Settlement  of  the  Israel 
ites  "in  the  cities  of  the  Medes."  —  Expedition  of  Sennacherib 
against  Hezekiah  —  exact  agreement  of  Scripture  with  Sennacherib's 
inscription.  —  Murder  of  Sennacherib  related  by  profane  writers  — 
Polyhistor,  Abydenus.  — Escape  of  the  murderers  "  into  Armenia" 
noticed  by  Moses  of  Chorene.  —  Succession  of  Esar-haddon  confirmed 
by  the  monuments.  —  Indirect  confirmation  of  the  curious  statement 
that  Manasseh  was  brought  to  him  at  Babylon.  —  Identification  of 
So,  (Seveh,~)  king  of  Egypt,  with  Shebck,  or  Sabace  —  of  Tirhakah 
with  Tehrak,  or  Taracus  —  of  Necho  with  Neku,  or  Ncchao  —  and  of 
Ilophra  with  llaifra,  or  Aprics.  —  Battle  of  Megiddo  and  calamitous 
end  of  Apries  confirmed  by  Herodotus.  —  Reign  of  Merodach-Bala- 


20  CONTENTS. 

dan  at  Babylon  confirmed  by  the  Inscriptions,  Berosus,  and  Ptolemy. 
—  Berosus  relates  the  recovery  of  Syria,  and  Palestine  by  Nebuchad 
nezzar,  and  also  his  deportation  of  the  Jews  and  destruction  of  Jeru 
salem. —  Summary 101 


LECTURE   V. 

Fourth  period  of  the  Jewish  History,  the  Captivity  and  Return  —  Dan 
iel  the  historian  of  the  Captivity.  —  Genuineness  of  Daniel  doubted 
without  sufficient  reason.  —  Authenticity  of  the  narrative,  denied  by 
De  Wette  and  others.  —  Examination  of  the  narrative  —  the  Captivity 
in  accordance  with  Oriental  habits  —  confirmed  by  Berosus.  —  The 
character  of  Nebuchadnezzar  as  portrayed  in  Scripture  accords  with 
Berosus  and  Abydenus  —  notice  of  his  prophetic  gift  by  the  latter.  — 
The  length  of  his  reign  may  be  gathered  from  Scripture,  and  accords 
exactly  with  Berosus  and  the  monuments.  —  Condition  of  Babylonia 
not  misrepresented  in  Daniel  —  account  of  the  "wise  men"  illus 
trated  by  recent  discoveries —  "  satrapial  organization"  of  the  empire 
possible,  but  not  asserted  in  Scripture.  —  Internal  harmony  of  Daniel's 
account.  —  Mysterious  malady  of  Nebuchadnezzar  perhaps  noticed 
in  an  obscure  passage  of  the  Standard  Inscription.  —  Succession  of 
Evil-Merodach  confirmed  by  Berosus  —  difficulty  with  regard  to  his 
character.  —  Neriglissar  identified  with  "  Nergal-Sharezer,  the  Rab- 
Mag."  —  Supposed  irreconcilable  difference  between  Scripture  and 
profane  history  in  the  narrative  concerning  Bclshazzar  —  Discovery 
that  Nabonadius,  during  the  latter  part  of  his  reign,  associated  in  the 
government  his  son,  Bil-shar-uzur,  and  allowed  him  the  royal  title.  — 
Bil-shar-uzur  probably  the  grandson  of  Nebuchadnezzar. —  "  Darius 
the  Mede  "  not  yet  identified.  —  Capture  of  Babylon  by  the  Medo- 
Persians,  during  a  feast,  and  transfer  of  Empire  confirmed  by  many 


CONTENTS.  21 

writers.  —  Solution  of  difficulties.  —  Chronology  of  the  Captivity 
confirmed  from  Babylonian  sources.  —  Reestablishment  of  the  Jews 
in  Palestine  related  in  the  books  of  Ezra  and  Nehemiah — their 
authenticity  generally  allowed  —  no  reason  to  doubt  their  genuine 
ness.  —  Book  of  Ezra  in  part  based  on  documents.  —  Attacks  upon 
the  authenticity  of  Esther  —  reply  to  them.  —  Author  of  Esther  un 
certain.  —  The  narrative  drawn  from  the  chronicles  kept  by  the  kings 
of  Persia.  —  Confirmation  of  this  portion  of  the  history  from  profane 
sources.  —  Religious  spirit  of  the  Persian  kings  in  keeping  with 
their  inscriptions.  —  Succession  of  the  kings  correctly  given.  —  Stop 
page  of  the  building  of  the  temple  by  the  Pseudo-Smerdis,  accords 
with  his  other  religious  changes.  —  Reversal  by  Darius  of  his  reli 
gious  policy  agrees  with  the  Behistun  Inscription.  —  Break  in  the 
history  as  recorded  by  Ezra  —  book  of  Esther  fills  up  the  gap.  —  The 
name  Ahasuerus,  the  proper  equivalent  of  Xerxes.  —  Truthfulness  of 
the  portraiture,  if  Xerxes  is  intended.  —  Harmony  of  the  history 
with  the  facts  recorded  by  the  Greeks.  —  Intimate  knowledge  of 
Persian  manners  and  customs.  —  The  massacre  of  their  enemies  by 
the  Jews  has  a  parallel  in  the  Magaphonia.  —  Character  of  Arta- 
xerxes  Longimanus  —  length  of  his  reign  accords  with  the  statement 
of  Xchemiah.  —  Summary  of  the  whole  result,  as  regards  the  His 
tory  of  the  Old  Testament 130 


LECTURE    VI. 

Plan  of  the  three  remaining  Lectures  —  proposal  to  regard  the  period 
covered  by  the  New  Testament  History  as  a  whole,  and  to  consider 
the  evidence  under  three  heads — 1.  The  internal  Evidence;  2.  The 
Evidence  of  Adversaries  ;  and,  3.  The  Evidence  of  the  early  Christian 
converts. 


22  CONTENTS. 

The  Internal  Evidence.  —  Number  and  separateness  of  the  documents. 

—  Doubts  raised  as  to  the  authorship  of  the  Historical  Books.  —  The 
doubts  considered  severally.  - —  Weight  of  the  external  testimony  to 
the  genuineness  of  the  Gospels  and  the  Acts.  —  Internal  evidence  to 
the  composition  of  the  Acts,  and  of  St.  Luke's  and  St.  John's  Gos 
pels,  by  contemporaries.  —  St.  Matthew's  and  St.  Mark's  Gospels  must 
have  been  written  about  the  same  time  as  St.  Luke's.  —  No  reason  to 
doubt  in  any  case  the  composition  by  the  reputed  aiithors.  —  Our 
four  Gospels  a  providential  mercy.  —  The   first   three  wholly  inde 
pendent  of   one  another.  —  Their  substantial   agreement   as    to  the 
facts  of  our  Lord's  life  and  ministry,  an  evidence  of  great  weight.  — 
Failure  of  the  attempt  of  Strauss  to  establish  any  real  disagreement. 

—  The  establishment  of  real  discrepancies  would  still  leave  the  writers 
historical  authorities  of  the  first  order.  —  Confirmation  of  the  Gospel 
History  from  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles.  —  Confirmation  of  the  History 
of  the  Acts  from  the  Epistles  of  St.  Paul  —  exhibition  of  this  argument 
in  the  Horce  Paulina  of  Paley  —  the  grounds  of  the  argument  not  ex 
hausted.  —  Paley's  argument  applicable  to  the  Gospels.  —  Confirma 
tion  of  the  Gospel  narrative  from  the  letters  of  the  Apostles.  —  Firm 
belief  of  the  Apostles  in  the  Gospel  facts  from  the  first,  evidenced  in 
the  Acts  and  the  Epistles.  —  Impossibility  of  the  sudden  growth  of 
myths  in  such  an  age  and  under  such  circumstances.  —  The  mythic 
theory  devised  in  order  to  make  Christianity  untrue,  without  ascrib 
ing  it   to   imposture  —  its   failure   in   respect  of  this  object.  —  No 
alternative  but  to  accept  the  statements  of  the  Evangelists  and  Apos 
tles,  or  to  regard  them  as  conscious  deceivers.  —  Unmistakable  air 
of  veracity  and  honesty  in  the  New  Testament  writings.  —  Conclu 
sion.  .     .          .     .          155 


CONTENTS.  23 


LECTURE   VII. 

The  Evidence  of  Adversaries.  —  Contrast  between  the  Old  and  New 
Testament  —  the  former  historical  —  the  latter  biographical.  —  Conse 
quent  scantiness  of  points  of  contact  between  the  main  facts  of  the 
New  Testament  narrative  and  profane  records.  —  Their  harmony 
chiefly  seen  through  the  incidental  allusions  of  the  New  Testament 
Avriters,  —  Importance  of  this  evidence.  —  Evidence  of  Heathens  to 
the  main  facts  of  Christianity,  really  very  considerable. — That  it  is 
not  more  must  be  regarded  as  the  result  of  a  forced  and  studied 
reticence.  —  Reticence  of  Josephus.  —  Loss  of  heathen  writings  of 
this  period,  which  may  have  contained  important  direct  evidence.  — 
Incidental  allusions  considered  under  three  heads  —  (i.)  The  general 
condition  of  the  countries  which  were  the  scene  of  the  history.  — 
Political  condition  of  Palestine  —  numerous  complications  and 
anomalies  —  faithfulness  of  the  New  Testament  notices.  —  Tone  and 
temper  of  the  Jews  at  the  time.  —  Condition  and  customs  of  the 
Greeks  and  Romans  in  Palestine,  Asia  Minor,  Greece,  and  Italy.  — 
Condition  and  number  of  the  foreign  Jews  —  oratories  —  syna 
gogues,  &c.  (ii.)  Representations  with  respect  to  the  civil  govern 
ment  of  the  countries.  —  Names  and  order  of  the  Roman  Emperors 
—  Jewish  native  princes  —  Roman  Procurators  of  Palestine  —  Ro 
man  Proconsuls  —  supposed  "error"  of  St.  Luke  with  regard  to 
the  Greek  Tetrarch,  Lysanias.  (iii.)  Historical  facts,  of  which,  if 
true,  profane  authors  might  have  been  expected  to  make  mention.  — 
Decree  of  Augustus  —  taxing  of  Cyrenius  —  rebellion  of  Theudas  — 
"  uproar  "  qf  the  Egyptian  —  famine  in  the  days  of  Claudius,  &c.  — 
Summary  and  conclusion 178 


24  CONTENTS. 


LECTURE   VIII. 

The  evidence  of  the  early  converts.  —  Its  abundance,  and  real  weight. 

—  Early  Christians  not  deficient  in  education,  position,  or  intellect. 

—  Historical  witness  of  the  Christian  writers  —  of  St.  Barnabas  —  of 
Clemens  Romanus  —  of  Ignatius  —  of  Polycarp  —  of  Hennas  —  of 
Quadratus  —  of  Justin  Martyr  —  of  subsequent  writers.  —  "Witness 
of  primitive  Christian  monuments,  especially  of  those  in  the  Roman 
Catacombs  —  their    genuine    character  —  their    antiquity.  —  Proof 
which  they  afford  of  the  enormous  numbers  of  the  Christians  in  the 
first  ages.  —  Proof  which  they  afford  of  the  sufferings  and  frequent 
martyrdoms  of  the  period.  —  Evidence  which  they  furnish  of  the 
historical  belief  of  the  time.  —  Weight  of  this  whole  testimony  —  the 
Greeks  and  Romans  not  at  this  time  credulous  —  not  likely  to  think 
little  of   the  obligations  incurred  by  professing  Christianity  —  the 
convert's  sole  stay  the  hope  of  the  resurrection.  —  Evidence  to  the 
truth  of  Christianity  from  the  continuance  of  miracles  in  the  Church 

—  proof  of  their  continuance.  —  Testimony  of  the  early  Christians 
enhanced  by   their   readiness   to  suffer  for  their  faith.  —  Conclu 
sion ,     206 


NOTES 229 

ADDITIONAL  NOTE 441 

SPECIFICATION  OF  EDITIONS  QUOTED,  OR  REFERRED  TO,  IN  THE 

NOTES  ,  443 


THE 

HISTORICAL   EVIDENCES 

OF    THE 

TRUTH  OF  THE  SCRIPTURE  RECORDS. 


LECTURE   I. 

LET  ALL  THE  NATIONS  BE  GATHERED  TOGETHER,  AND  LET  THE  PEOPLE 
BE  ASSEMBLED  :  WHO  AMONG  THEM  CAN  DECLARE  THIS,  AND  SHOW  US 
FORMER  THINGS?  LET  THEM  BRING  FORTH  THEIR  WITNESSES,  THAT 
THEY  MAY  BE  JUSTIFIED  :  OR  LEX  THEM  HEAR,  AND  SAY,  IT  IS  TRUTH. 
—  ISAIAH  XLIII.  9. 

CHRISTIANITY  — »•  including  therein  the  dispensation  of 
the  Old  Testament,  which  was  its  first  stage  —  is  in  noth 
ing  more  distinguished  from  the  other  religions  of  the 
world  than  in  its  objective  or  historical  character.  The 
religions  of  Greece  and  Koine,  of  Egypt,  India,  Persia,  and 
the  East  generally,  were  speculative  systems,  which  did  not 
even  seriously  postulate  an  historical  basis.  If  they  seemed 
to  do  so  to  some  extent,  if  for  instance  the  mythological 
ideas  of  the  Greeks  be  represented  under  the  form  of  a 
mythological  period,  which  moreover  blends  gradually  and 
almost  imperceptibly  with  the  historical,  still  in  the  minds 
of  the  Greeks  themselves  the  periods  were  separate  and 
distinct,  not  merely  in  time,  but  in  character ;  and  the  ob 
jective  reality  of  the  scenes  and  events  described  as  be 
longing  to  each  was  not  conceived  of  as  parallel,  or  even 

3  (25) 


26  HISTORICAL  EVIDENCES  OF  THE  LECT.  I. 

similar,  in  the  two  cases.  0)  The  modern  distinction  be 
tween  the  legend  and  the  myth,  properly  so  called,  (2)  was 
felt,  if  not  formally  recognized,  by  the  Greek  mind ;  and 
the  basis  of  fact,  which  is  of  the  essence  of  the  former, 
was  regarded  as  absent  from  the  latter,  which  thus  ceased 
altogether  to  be  history.  Mahometanism  again,  and  the 
other  religious  systems  which  have  started  with  an  indi 
vidual,  and  which  so  far  bear  a  nearer  resemblance  to  the 
religions  of  Moses  and  of  Christ,  than  those  that  have 
grown  up  and  been  developed  gradually  out  of  the  feeling 
and  imagination  of  a  people,  are  very  slightly,  if  at  all, 
connected  with  any  body  of  important  facts,  the  due  attes 
tation  of  which  and  their  accordance  with  other  known 
facts  might  be  made  the  subject  of  critical  examination. 
We  may  concede  the  truth  of  the  whole  story  of  Mahomet, 
as  it  was  related  by  his  early  followers,  and  this  concession 
in  no  sort  carries  with  it  even  the  probable  truth  of  the 
religion.  C3)  But  it  is  otherwise  with  the  religion  of  the 
Bible.  There,  whether  we  look  to  the  Old  or  the  New 
Testament,  to  the  Jewish  dispensation  or  to  the  Christian, 
we  find  a  scheme  of  doctrine  which  is  bound  up  with  facts ; 
which  depends  absolutely  upon  them ;  which  is  null  and 
void  without  them ;  and  which  may  be  regarded  as  for  all 
practical  purposes  established  if  they  are  shown  to  deserve 
acceptance. 

It  is  this  peculiar  feature  of  Christianity  —  a  feature 
often  noticed  by  its  apologists  (4>  —  which  brings  it  into 
such  a  close  relation  to  historical  studies  and  investigations. 
As  a  religion  of  fact,  and  not  merely  of  opinion,  —  as  one 
whose  chief  scene  is  this  world,  and  whose  main  doctrines 
are  events  exhibited  openly  before  the  eyes  of  men  —  as 
one  moreover  which,  instead  of  aifecting  a  dogmatic  form, 
adopts  from  first  to  last,  with  very  rare  exceptions,  the  his- 


LECT.  I.         TRUTH   OF  THE   SCRIPTURE  RECORDS.  27 

torical  shape,  it  comes  necessarily  within  the  sphere  of  the 
historical  inquirer,  and  challenges  him  to  investigate  it  ac 
cording  to  what  he  regards  as  the  principles  of  his  science. 
Moreover,  as  Christianity  is  in  point  of  fact  connected  in 
timately  with  certain  records,  and  as  those  records  extend 
over  a  period  of  several  thousands  of  years,  and  "  profess 
to  contain  a  kind  of  abridgment  of  the  history  of  the 
world,"  (5>  its  points  of  contact  with  profane  history  are 
(practically  speaking)  infinite;  and  it  becomes  impossible 
for  the  historical  inquirer  to  avoid  the  question,  in  what 
light  he  is  to  view  the  documents  which,  if  authentic,  must 
exercise  so  important  an  influence  over  his  studies  and  con 
clusions. 

Christianity  then  cannot  complain  if,  from  time  to  time, 
as  historical  science  advances,  the  question  is  raised  afresh 
concerning  the  real  character  of  those  events  which  form 
its  basis,  and  the  real  value  of  those  documents  on  which 
it  relies.  As  an  historical  religion,  it  invites  this  species  of 
inquiry,  and  is  glad  that  it  should  be  made  and  repeated. 
It  only  complains  in  one  of  two  cases  —  when  either  prin 
ciples  unsound  and  wrong  in  themselves,  having  been  as 
sumed  as  proper  criteria  of  historic  truth,  are  applied  to  it 
for  the  purpose  of  disparagement ;  or  when,  right  princi 
ples  being  assumed,  the  application  of  them,  of  which  it  is 
the  object,  is  unfair  and  illegitimate. 

It  is  the  latter  of  these  two  errors  which  seems  to  me  to 
be  the  chief  danger  of  the  present  day.  Time  was  —  and 
that  not  very  long  ago  —  when  all  the  relations  of  ancient 
authors  concerning  the  old  world  were  received  with  a 
ready  belief;  and  an  unreasoning  and  uncritical  faith  ac 
cepted  with  equal  satisfaction  the  narrative  of  the  cam 
paigns  of  Caisar  and  of  the  doings  of  Romulus,  the  account 
of  Alexander's  marches  and  of  the  conquests  of  Semiramis. 


28  HISTORICAL   EVIDENCES   OF   THE  LECT.  I. 

We  can  most  of  us  remember  when  in  this  country  the 
whole  story  of  Regal  Rome,  and  even  the  legend  of  the 
Trojan  settlement  in  Latium,  were  seriously  placed  before 
boys  as  history,  and  discoursed  of  as  unhesitatingly,  and  in 
as  dogmatic  a  tone,  as  the  tale  of  the  Catiline  conspiracy, 
or  the  conquest  of  Britain.  "  All  ancient  authors  were  "  at 
tills  time,  as  has  been  justly  observed,  "put  upon  the  same 
footing,  and  regarded  as  equally  credible ; "  while  "  all  parts 
of  an  author's  work  were  supposed  to  rest  on  the  same 
basis."  (6)  A  blind  and  indiscriminate  faith  of  a  low  kind 
—  acquiescence  rather  than  actual  belief — embraced  equally 
and  impartially  the  whole  range  of  ancient  story,  setting 
aside  perhaps  those  prodigies  which  easily  detached  them 
selves  from  the  narrative,  and  were  understood  to  be  em 
bellishments  on  a  par  with  mere  graces  of  composition. 

But  all  this  is  now  changed.  The  last  century  has  seen 
the  birth  and  growth  of  a  new  science  —  the  science  of 
Historical  Criticism.  Beginning  in  France  with  the  labors 
of  Pouilly  and  Beaufort/7)  it  advanced  with  rapid  strides 
in  Germany  under  the  guidance  of  Niebuhr,  (8>  Otfried 
Miiller,  (9>  and  Bockh,  (10)  and  finally,  has  been  introduced 
and  naturalized  among  ourselves  by  means  of  the  writings 
of  our  best  living  historians.  C11) 

Its  results  in  its  own  proper  arid  primary  field  are  of  the 
most  extensive  and  remarkable  character.  The  whole 
world  of  profane  history  has  been  revolutionized.  By  a 
searching  and  critical  investigation  of  the  mass  of  mate 
rials  on  which  that  history  rested,  and  by  the  application  to 
it  of  Canons  embodying  the  judgments  of  a  sound  discre 
tion  upon  the  value  of  different  sorts  of  evidence,  the  views 
of  the  ancient  world  formerly  entertained  have  been  in  ten 
thousand  points  either  modified  or  reversed  —  a  new  anti 
quity  has  been  raised  up  out  of  the  old  —  while  much  that 


LECT.  I.          TRUTH   OP   THE   SCRIPTURE   RECORDS.  29 

was  unreal  in  the  picture  of  past  times  which  men  had 
formed  to  themselves  has  disappeared,  consigned  to  that 
"  Limbo  large  and  broad  "  into  which  "  all  things  transitory 
and  vain"  are  finally  received,  a  fresh  revelation  has  in 
many  cases  taken  the  place  of  the  old  view,  which  has  dis 
solved  before  the  wand  of  the  critic ;  and  a  firm  and  strong 
fabric  has  arisen  out  of  the  shattered  debris  of  the  fallen 
systems.  Thus  the  results  obtained  have  been  both  posi 
tive  and  negative ;  but,  it  must  be  confessed,  with  a  pre 
ponderance  of  the  latter  over  the  former.  The  scepticism 
in  which  the  science  originated  has  clung  to  it  from  first  to 
last,  and  in  recent  times  we  have  seen  not  only  a  greater 
leaning  to  the  destructive  than  to  the  constructive  side, 
but  a  tendency  to  push  doubt  and  incredulity  beyond  due 
limits,  to  call  in  question  without  cause,  and  to  distrust 
what  is  sufficiently  established.  This  tendency  has  not, 
however,  been  allowed  to  pass  unrebuked ;  (12)  and  viewing1 
the  science  as  developed,  not  in  the  writings  of  this  or  that 
individual,  but  in  the  general  conclusions  in  which  it  has 
issued,  we  may  regard  it  as  having  done,  and  as  still  pre 
pared  to  do,  good  service  in  the  cause  of  truth. 

It  was  not  to  be  expected  —  nor  was  it,  I  think,  to  be 
wished  —  that  the  records  of  past  times  contained  in  the 
Old  and  New  Testament  should  escape  the  searching 
ordeal  to  which  all  other  historical  documents  had  been 
subjected,  or  remain  long,  on  account  of  their  sacred  char 
acter,  unscrutinized  by  the  inquirer.  Reverence  may  possi 
bly  gain,  but  Faith,  I  believe,  —  real  and  true  Faith  — 
greatly  loses  by  the  establishment  of  a  wall  of  partition  be 
tween  the  sacred  and  the  profane,  and  the  subtraction  of 
the  former  from  the  domain  of  scientific  inquiry.  As  truth 
of  one  kind  Cannot  possibly  be  contradictory  to  truth  of 
another,  Christianity  has  nothing  to  fear  from  scientific 

3* 


30  HISTORICAL   EVIDENCES    OP   THE  LECT.  I. 

investigations;  and  any  attempt  to  isolate  its  facts  and 
preserve  them  from  the  scrutiny  which  profane  history  re 
ceives  must,  if  successful,  diminish  the  fulness  of  our  assent 
to  them  —  the  depth  and  reality  of  our  belief  in  their 
actual  occurrence.  It  is  by  the  connection  of  sacred  with 
profane  history  that  the  facts  of  the  former  are  most  vividly 
apprehended,  and  most  distinctly  felt  to  be  real ;  to  sever 
between  the  two  is  to  make  the  sacred  narrative  grow  dim 
and  shadowy,  and  to  encourage  the  notion  that  its  details 
are  not  facts  in  the  common  and  every-day  sense  of  the 
word. 

When  therefore,  upon  the  general  acceptance  of  the 
principles  laid  down  with  respect  to  profane  history  by 
Otfried  Muller  and  Niebuhr,  theological  critics  in  Germany 
proceeded,  as  they  said,  to  apply  the  new  canons  of  histori 
cal  criticism  to  the  Gospels  and  to  the  historical  books  of 
the  Old  Testament,  there  wras  no  cause  for  surprise,  nor 
any  ground  for  extreme  apprehension.  There  is  of  course 
always  danger  when  science  alone,  disjoined  from  religious 
feeling,  undertakes,  with  its  purblind  sight  and  limited 
means  of  knowing,  to  examine,  weigh,  and  decide  matters 
of  the  highest  import.  But  there  did  not  appear  to  be  in 
this  instance  any  reason  for  special  alarm.  The  great 
Master-spirit,  he  to  whom  the  new  science  owed,  if  not  its 
existence,  yet  at  any  rate  its  advancement  and  the  estima 
tion  in  which  it  was  generally  held  —  had  distinctly  ac 
cepted  the  mass  of  the  Scripture  history  as  authentic,  and 
was  a  sincere  and  earnest  believer.  (13)  It  was  hoped  that 
the  inquiry  would  be  made  in  his  spirit,  and  by  means  of 
a  cautious  application  of  his  principles.  But  the  fact  has 
unfortunately  been  otherwise.  The  application  of  the 
science  of  historical  criticism  to  the  narrative  of  Scripture 
has  been  made  in  Germany  by  two  schools  —  one  certainly 


LECT.  I.          TRUTH   OP  THE   SCRIPTURE  RECORDS.  31 

far  less  extravagant  than  the  other  —  but  both  wanting  in 
sound  critical  judgment,  as  well  as  in  a  due  reverence  for 
the  Written  Word.  It  will  be  necessary,  in  order  to  make 
the  scope  of  these  Lectures  clearly  intelligible,  to  give  an 
account  at  some  length  of  the  conclusions  and  reasonings 
of  both  classes  of  critics. 

The  portion  of  the  Scripture  history  which  was  first 
subjected  to  the  application  of  the  new  principles  was  the 
historical  part  of  the  Old  Testament.  It  was  soon  de 
clared  that  a  striking  parallelism  existed  between  this  his 
tory  and  the  early  records  of  most  heathen  nations.  (14> 
The  miracles  in  the  narrative  were  compared  with  the 
prodigies  and  divine  appearances  related  by  Herodotus  and 
Livy.  (15>  The  chronology  was  said  to  bear  marks,  like  that 
of  Rome  and  Babylon,  of  artificial  arrangement ;  the  re 
currence  of  similar  numbers,  and  especially  of  round  num 
bers,  particularly  indicating  its  uiihistorical  character.  (1G> 
The  names  of  kings,  it  was  observed,  were  frequently  so 
apposite,  that  the  monarchs  supposed  to  have  borne  them 
must  be  regarded  as  fictitious  personages,  (17)  like  Theseus 
and  Numa,  Portions  of  the  sacred  narrative  were  early 
declared  to  present  every  appearance  of  being  simply 
myths ;  <18)  and  by  degrees  it  was  sought  to  attach  to  the 
whole  history,  from  first  to  last,  a  legendary  and  unreal 
character.  All  objections  taken  by  rationalists  or  infidels 
to  particular  relations  in  the  sacred  books  being  allowed  as 
valid,  it  was  considered  a  sufficient  account  of  such  rela 
tions  to  say,  that  the  main  source  of  the  entire  narrative 
was  oral  tradition  —  that  it  first  took  a  written  shape  many 
hundreds  of  years  after  the  supposed  date  of  the  circum 
stances  narrated,  the  authors  being  poets  rather  than  his 
torians,  and  bent  rather  on  glorifying  their  native  country 
than  on  giving  a  true  relation  of  facts  —  and  that  in  places 


32  HISTORICAL  EVIDENCES   OF  THE  LECT.  L 

they  had  not  even  confined  themselves  to  the  exaggeration 
and  embellishment  of  actual  occurrences,  but  had  allowed 
imagination  to  step  in  and  fill  up  blanks  in  their  annals.  (19) 
By  some,  attempts  were  made  to  disentangle  the  small  ele 
ment  of  fact  which  lay  involved  in  so  much  romance  and 
poetry  from  the  mass  in  which  it  was  embedded ;  C20)  but 
the  more  logical  minds  rejected  this  as  a  vain  and  useless 
labor,  maintaining  that  no  separation  which  was  other 
than  arbitrary  could  be  effected ;  and  that  the  events 
themselves,  together  with  the  dress  in  which  they  ap 
peared,  "  constituted  a  whole  belonging  to  the  province  of 
poetry  and  mythus."  (21>  It  was  argued  that  by  this  treat 
ment  the  sacredncss  and  divinity,  and  even  the  substantial 
truth  of  the  Scriptures,  was  left  unassailed ;  C22)  the  literal 
meaning  only  being  discarded,  and  an  allegorical  one  sub 
stituted  in  its  place.  Lastly,  the  name  of  Origen  was  pro 
duced  from  the  primitive  and  best  ages  of  Christianity  to 
sanction  this  system  of  interpretation,  and  save  it  from  the 
fatal  stigma  of  entire  and  absolute  novelty.  C23) 

When  the  historical  character  of  the  Old  Testament,  as 
sailed  on  all  sides  by  clever  and  eloquent  pens,  and  weakly 
defended  by  here  and  there  a  single  hesitating  apolo 
gist,  seemed  to  those  who  had  conducted  the  warfare  irre 
trievably  demolished  and  destroyed,  (24)  the  New  Testament 
became,  after  a  pause,  the  object  of  attack  to  the  same 
school  of  writers.  It  was  felt,  no  doubt,  to  be  a  bold  thing 
to  characterize  as  a  collection  of  myths  the  writings  of  an 
age  of  general  enlightenment  (25)  —  nay,  even  of  incredulity 
and  scepticism ;  and  perhaps  a  lingering  regard  for  what 
so  many  souls  held  precious,  (26)  stayed  the  hands  of  those 
who  nevertheless  saw  plainly,  that  the  New  Testament  was 
open  to  the  same  method  of  attack  as  the  Old,  and  that  an 
inexorable  logic  required  that  both  should  be  received  or 


LECT.  I.         TRUTH   OF  THE   SCRIPTURE  RECORDS.  33 

neither.  A  pause  therefore  ensued,  but  a  pause  of  no  long 
duration.  First,  particular  portions  of  the  New  Testament 
narrative,  as  the  account  of  our  Lord's  infancy,  (2?)  and  of 
the  Temptation,  (28)  were  declared  to  possess  equal  tokens 
of  a  mythic  origin  with  those  which  had  been  previously 
regarded  as  fatal  to  the  historical  character  of  Old  Testa 
ment  stories,  and  were  consequently  singled  out  for  rejec 
tion.  Then,  little  by  little,  the  same  system  of  explanation 
was  adopted  with  respect  to  more  and  more  of  the  narra 
tive  ;  (29)  till  at  last,  in  the  hands  of  Strauss,  the  whole 
came  to  be  resolved  into  pure  myth  and  legend,  and  the 
historical  Christ  being  annihilated,  the  world  was  told  to 
console  itself  with  a  "  God-man,  eternally  incarnate,  not  an 
individual,  but  an  idea ; "  (30>  which,  on  examination,  turns 
out  to  be  no  God  at  all,  but  mere  man  —  man  perfected  by 
nineteenth-century  enlightenment  —  dominant  over  nature 
by  the  railroad  and  the  telegraph,  and  over  himself  by  the 
negation  of  the  merely  natural  and  sensual  life,  and  the 
substitution  for  it  of  the  intellectual,  or  (in  the  nomencla 
ture  of  the  school)  the  spiritual. 

"  In  an  individual,"  says  Strauss,  "  the  properties  which 
the  Church  ascribes  to  Christ  contradict  themselves  ;  in  the 
idea  of  the  race  they  perfectly  agree.  Humanity  is  the 
union  of  the  two  natures  —  God  become  man,  the  infinite 
manifesting  itself  in  the  finite,  and  the  finite  spirit  remem 
bering  its  infinitude ;  it  is  the  child  of  the  visible  Mother 
and  the  invisible  Father,  Nature  and  Spirit;  it  is  the 
worker  of  miracles,  in  so  far  as  in  the  course  of  human 
history  the  spirit  more  and  more  completely  subjugates 
nature,  both  within  and  around  man,  until  it  lies  before 
him  as  the  inert  matter  on  which  he  exercises  his  active 
power;  it  is  the  sinless  existence,  for  the  course  of  its 
development  is  a  blameless  one ;  pollution  cleaves  to  the 


34  HISTORICAL  EVIDENCES  OF  THE  LECT.  I. 

individual  only,  and  does  not  touch  the  race  or  its  history. 
It  is  Humanity  that  dies,  rises,  and  ascends  to  Heaven ;  for 
from  the  negation  of  its  phenomenal  life  there  ever  pro 
ceeds  a  higher  spiritual  life ;  from  the  suppression  of  its 
mortality  as  a  personal,  national,  and  terrestrial  spirit, 
arises  its  union  with  the  infinite  spirit  of  the  heavens.  By 
faith  in  this  Christ,  especially  in  his  death  and  resurrec 
tion,  man  is  justified  before  God ;  that  is,  by  the  kindling 
within  him  of  the  idea  of  Humanity,  the  individual  man 
partakes  of  the  divinely  human  life  of  the  species" (31) 

Such  are  the  lengths  to  which  speculation,  professedly 
grounding  itself  on  the  established  principles  of  historical 
criticism,  has  proceeded  in  our  day ;  and  such  the  conclu 
sions  recommended  to  our  acceptance  by  a  philosophy 
which  calls  itself  preeminently  spiritual.  How  such  a  phi 
losophy  differs  from  Atheism,  except  in  the  use  of  a 
religious  terminology,  which  it  empties  of  all  religious 
meaning,  I  confess  myself  unable  to  perceive.  The  final 
issue  of  the  whole  seems  to  be  simply  that  position  which 
Aristotle  scouted  as  the  merest  folly,  that  "  man  is  the 
highest  and  most  divine  thing  in  the  universe,"  (32)  and  that 
God  consequently  is  but  a  name  for  humanity  when  per 
fected. 

More  dangerous  to  faith,  because  less  violent  in  its 
methods,  and  less  sweeping  in  the  conclusions  to  which  it 
comes,  is  the  moderate  rationalism  of  another  school,  a 
school  which  can  with  some  show  of  reason  claim  to  shelter 
itself  under  the  great  name  and  authority  of  Niebuhr.  Not 
withstanding  the  personal  faith  of  Niebulir,  which  cannot 
be  doubted,  and  the  strong  expressions  of  which  he  made 
use  against  the  advocates  of  the  mythical  theory,  C33)  he 
was  himself  upon  occasions  betrayed  into  remarks  which 
involved  to  a  great  extent  their  principles,  and  opened  a 


LECT.  I.         TRUTH   OF  THE  SCRIPTURE  RECORDS.  35 

door  to  the  thorough-going  scepticism  from  which  he  indi 
vidually  shrank  with  horror.  For  instance,  in  one  place 
Niebuhr  says,  with  respect  to  the  Book  of  Esther,  "  I  am 
convinced  that  this  book  is  not  to  be  regarded  as  his 
torical,  and  I  have  not  the  least  hesitation  in  here  stating 
it  publicly.  Many  entertain  the  same  opinion.  Even  the 
early  fathers  have  tormented  themselves  with  it ;  and  St. 
Jerome,  as  he  himself  clearly  indicates,  was  in  the  greatest 
perplexity  through  his  desire  to  regard  it  as  an  historical 
document.  At  present  no  one  looks  upon  the  Book  of 
Judith  as  historical,  and  neither  Origen  nor  St.  Jerome  did 
so ;  the  same  is  the  case  with  Esther ;  it  is  nothing  more 
than  a  poem  on  the  occurrences."  (34)  The  great  historical 
critic  here  (so  far  as  appears,  on  mere  subjective  grounds, 
because  the  details  of  the  narrative  did  not  appear  to  him 
probable)  surrendered  to  the  mythical  interpreters  a  book 
of  Scripture  —  admitted  that  to  be  "  a  poem  and  nothing 
more,"  which,  on  the  face  of  it,  bore  the  appearance  of 
a  plain  matter-of-fact  history  —  put  a  work  which  the 
Church  has  always  regarded  as  canonical  and  authoritative 
on  a  par  with  one  which  was  early  pronounced  apocryphal, 
—  not,  certainly,  moved  to  do  so  by  any  defect  in  the 
external  evidence,  (35)  though  a  vague  reference  is  made  to 
"  early  fathers ; "  but  on  account  of  internal  difficulties, 
either  in  the  story  itself,  or  in  the  manner  of  its  narration. 
I  cannot  see  that  it  is  possible  to  distinguish  the  princi 
ple  of  this  surrender  from  that  asserted  by  the  mythical 
school;  or  that  the  principle  once  admitted,  any  ground 
can  be  shown  for  limiting  its  application  to  a  single 
book  of  Scripture,  or  indeed  to  any  definite  number  of 
such  books.  Let  it  be  once  allowed  that  we  may  declare 
any  part  of  Scripture  which  seems  to  us  improbable, 
or  which  does  not  approve  itself  to  our  notions  of  what 


36  HISTORICAL   EVIDENCES   OF   THE  LECT.  I. 

revelation  should  be,  "a  poem  and  nothing  more,"  and 
what  security  is  there  against  the  extremest  conclusions 
of  the  mythologists  ?  One  book  will  naturally  be  sur 
rendered  after  another,  (3G>  and  the  final  result  will  not 
be  distinguishable  from  that  at  which  the  school  of  De 
Wette  and  Strauss  professedly  aims  —  the  destruction  of 
all  trust  in  the  historical  veracity  of  the  Scripture  nar 
rative. 

The  partial  scepticism  of  Niebuhr  has  always  had  follow 
ers  in  Germany  —  men  who  are  believers,  but  who  admit 
the  principles  of  unbelief — who  rationalize,  but  who  think 
to  say  to  the  tide  of  rationalism,  "  Thus  far  shalt  thou  go, 
and  no  farther."  I  shall  not  detain  my  hearers  w^ith  a  long 
array  of  instances  in  this  place.  Suffice  it  to  adduce  the 
teaching  of  a  single  living  writer,  whose  influence  is  very 
considerable  both  in  Germany  and  in  our  own  country. 
On  the  ground  that  Egypt  has  a  continuous  history,  com 
mencing  more  than  six  thousand  years  before  the  Christian 
era,  we  are  required  to  reject  the  literal  interpretation  of 
the  sixth,  seventh,  and  eighth  chapters  of  Genesis,  and  to 
believe  that  the  Flood  was  no  more  than  a  great  catas 
trophe  in  Western  Asia,  which  swept  away  the  inhabitants 
of  that  region,  but  left  Egypt  and  the  greater  part  of  the 
world  untouched.  Ham,  we  are  told,  is  not  a  person,  but 
the  symbolical  representative  of  Egypt ;  and  he  is  the 
elder  brother,  because  Egyptian  Hamitism  is  older  than 
Asiatic  Semitism.  The  expression  that  Canaan  is  the  son 
of  Ham  "must  be  interpreted  geographically;"  it  means, 
that  the  Canaanitic  tribes  which  inhabited  historical 
Canaan  came  from  Egypt,  where  they  had  previously  had 
their  abode.  Kimrod  is  said  to  have  been  begotten  by 
Cush ;  but  he  was  no  more  a  Cushite  by  blood  than 
Canaan  was  an  Egyptian ;  he  is  called  a  Cushite,  because 


LECT.  L         TRUTH   OF  THE  SCRIPTURE  RECORDS.  37 

the  people  represented  by  him  came  from  the  part  of 
Africa  called  Cush  or  Ethiopia  (which  they  had  held  as 
conquerors)  back  into  Asia,  and  there  established  an 
empire. (37>  Again,  "the  family  tree  of  Abraham  is  an 
historical  representation  of  the  great  and  lengthened 
migrations  of  the  primitive  Asiatic  race  of  man,  from  the 
mountains  of  Armenia  and  Chaldaea,  through  Mesopota 
mia,  to  the  north-east  frontier  of  Egypt,  as  far  as  Amalek 
and  Edom.  It  represents  the  connection  between  nations 
and  their  tribes,  not  personal  connection  between  father  and 
son,  and  records  consequently  epochs,  not  real  human 
pedigrees?^  The  early  Scriptures  are  devoid  altogether 
of  an  historical  chronology.  When  the  sojourn  of  the 
children  of  Israel  in  Egypt  is  said  to  have  been  four  hun 
dred  and  thirty  years,  of  which  one  half,  or  two  hundred 
and  fifteen  years,  was  from  Abraham's  going  down  into 
Egypt  to  Jacob's,  the  other  from  Jacob's  going  down  to 
the  Exodus,  the  number  must  be  regarded  as  "conven 
tional  and  unhistorical;"  (39)  as  "connected-  with  the 
legendary  genealogies  of  particular  families  ;"  (4°)  as  formed, 
in  fact,  artificially  by  a  doubling  of  the  first  period ;  which 
itself  only  "represents  the  traditionary  accounts  of  the 
primitive  times  of  Canaan,  as  embodied  in  a  genealogy 
of  the  three  patriarchs,"  (41)  and  "  cannot  possibly  be  worthy 
of  more  confidence  than  the  traditions  with  regard  to 
the  second  period,"  which  are  valueless.  C42)  Of  course 
the  earlier  lists  of  names  and  calculations  of  years  are 
looked  upon  with  still  less  favor.  "  The  Jewish  tradition, 
in  proportion  as  its  antiquity  is  thrown  back,  bears  on 
its  face  less  of  a  chronological  character,"  so  that  "  no 
light  is  to  be  gleaned  from  it"  for  general  purposes. (43> 
Even  in  the  comparatively  recent  times  of  David  and  Sol 
omon,  there  is  no  coherent  or  reliable  chronology;  the 

4 


38  HISTORICAL   EVIDENCES   OP  THE  LECT.  I. 

round  number  forty  being  still  met  with,  which  is  taken  to 
be  an  indubitable  sign  of  arbitrary  and  artificial  arrange 
ment.  (44> 

Such  are  some  of  the  results  which  have,  in  fact,  fol 
lowed  from  the  examination  by  historical  critics,  possessed 
of  more  or  less  critical  acumen,  of  those  sacred  records, 
which  are  allowed  on  all  hands  to  be  entitled  to  deep 
respect,  and  which  we  in  this  place  believe  to  be,  not 
indeed  free  from  such  small  errors  as  the  carelessness  or 
ignorance  of  transcribers  may  have  produced,  but  substan 
tially  "  the  Word  of  God."  I  propose  at  the  present  time, 
in  opposition  to  the  views  which  I  have  sketched,  to 
examine  the  Sacred  Narrative  on  the  positive  side.  Leav 
ing  untouched  the  question  of  the  inspiration  of  Scripture, 
and  its  consequent  title  to  outweigh  all  conflicting  testi 
mony  whatever,  I  propose  briefly  to  review  the  historical 
evidence  for  the  orthodox  belief.  My  object  will  be  to 
meet  the  reasoning  of  the  historical  sceptics  on  their  own 
ground.  I  do  not,  indeed,  undertake  to  consider  and 
answer  their  minute  and  multitudinous  cavils,  which  would 
be  an  endless  task,  and  which  is  moreover  unnecessary, 
as  to  a  great  extent  the  cavillers  meet  and  answer  one 
another ;  (45)  but  I  hope  to  show,  without  assuming  the 
inspiration  of  the  Bible,  that  for  the  great  facts  of  revealed 
religion,  the  miraculous  history  of  the  Jews,  and  the  birth, 
life,  death,  resurrection,  and  ascension  of  Christ,  as  well  as 
for  his  miracles  and  those  of  his  apostles,  the  historical 
evidence  which  we  possess  is  of  an  authentic  and  satisfac 
tory  character.  I  shall  review  this  evidence  in  the  light 
and  by  the  laws  of  the  modern  historical  criticism,  so  far 
as  they  seem  to  be  established.  Those  laws  appear  to  me 
to  be  sound;  and  their  natural  and  real  bearing  is  to 
increase  instead  of  diminishing  the  weight  of  the  Christian 


LECT.  1.         TRUTH   OF  THE   SCRIPTURE  RECORDS.  39 

evidences.  It  is  not  from  a  legitimate  and  proper  applica 
tion  of  them  that  faith  has  suffered,  but  partly  from  their 
neglect  or  misapplication,  partly  from  the  intrusion  among 
them  of  a  single  unproved  and  irrational  opinion. 

I  am  not  aware  that  the  laws  in  question  have  ever  been 
distinctly  laid  down  in  a  compendious,  or  even  in  an 
abstract  form.  They  are  assumed  throughout  the  writings 
of  our  best  historians,  but  they  are  involved  in  their 
criticisms  rather  than  directly  posited  as  their  principles. 
I  believe,  however,  that  I  shall  not  misrepresent  them 
if  I  say,  that,  viewed  on  their  positive  side,  they  consist 
chiefly  of  the  four  following  Canons :  — 

1.  When  the  record  which  we  possess  of  an  event  is  the 
writing  of  a  contemporary,  supposing  that  he  is  a  credible 
witness,  and  had  means  of  observing  the  fact  to  which  he 
testifies,  the  fact  is  to  be  accepted,  as  possessing  the  first  or 
highest  degree  of  historical  credibility.     Such  evidence  is 
on  a  par  with  that  of  witnesses  in  a  court  of  justice,  with 
the  drawback,  on  the  one  hand,  that  the  man  who  gives  it 
is  not  sworn  to  speak  the  truth,  and  with  the  advantage,  on 
the  other,  that  he  is  less  likely  than  the  legal  witness  to 
have  a  personal  interest  in  the  matter  concerning  which  he 
testifies.  (46> 

2.  When  the  event  recorded  is  one  which  the  writer 
may  be   reasonably  supposed   to   have    obtained   directly 
from  those  who  witnessed  it,  we  should  accept  it  as  proba 
bly  true,   unless   it   be   in   itself  very  improbable.     Such 
evidence  possesses  the  second  degree  of  historical  credi 
bility.  (47> 

3.  When  the  event  recorded   is  removed   considerably 
from  the  age  of  the  recorder  of  it,  and  there  is  no  reason  to 
believe  that  he  obtained  it  from  a  contemporary  writing, 
but  the  probable  source  of  his  information  was  oral  tra- 


40  HISTORICAL  EVIDENCES   OF  THE  LECT.  L 

dition ;  still,  if  the  event  be  one  of  great  importance,  and 
of  public  notoriety,  if  it  affected  the  national  life,  or  pros 
perity, —  especially  if  it  be  of  a  nature  to  have  been  at 
once  commemorated  by  the  establishment  of  any  rite  or 
practice,  —  then  it  has  a  claim  to  belief  as  probably  true,  at 
least  in  its  general  outline.  (48>  This,  however,  is  the  third, 
and  a  comparatively  low,  degree  of  historical  credibility. 

4.  When  the  traditions  of  one  race,  which,  if  unsup 
ported,  would  have  had  but  small  claim  to  attention, 
and  none  to  belief,  are  corroborated  by  the  traditions  of 
another,  especially  if  a  distant  or  hostile  race,  the  event 
which  has  this  double  testimony  obtains  thereby  a  high 
amount  of  probability,  and,  if  not  very  unlikely  in  itself, 
thoroughly  deserves  acceptance.  (49)  The  degree  of  his 
torical  credibility  in  this  case  is  not  exactly  commensurable 
with  that  in  the  others,  since  a  new  and  distinct  ground  of 
likelihood  comes  into  play.  It  may  be  as  strong  as  the 
highest,  and  it  may  be  almost  as  weak  as  the  lowest, 
though  this  is  not  often  the  case  in  fact.  In  a  general 
way  we  may  say  that  the  weight  of  this  kind  of  evidence 
exceeds  that  which  has  been  called  the  third  degree 
of  historical  probability,  and  nearly  approaches  to  the 
second. 

To  these  Canons  may  be  added  certain  corollaries,  or 
dependent  truths,  —  with  respect  to  the  relative  value  of 
the  materials  from  which  history  is  ordinarily  composed,  — 
important  to  be  borne  in  mind  in  all  inquiries  like  that 
on  which  we  are  entering.  Historical  materials  may  be 
divided  into  direct  and  indirect,  —  direct,  or  such  as  pro 
ceed  from  the  agents  in  the  occurrences ;  indirect,  or  such 
as  are  the  embodiment  of  inquiries  and  researches  made  by 
persons  not  themselves  engaged  in  the  transactions.  The 
are  allowed,  on  all  hands,  to  be  of  primary  impor- 


LECT.  I.         TRUTH   OF  THE   SCRIPTURE   RECORDS.  41 

tance.  There  is  indeed  a  drawback  upon  their  value, 
arising  out  of  the  tendency  of  human  vanity  to  exalt  self 
at  the  expense  of  truth ;  but  where  the  moral  character  of 
the  writer  is  a  security  against  wilful  misrepresentation,  or 
where  the  publicity  of  the  events  themselves  would  make 
misrepresentation  folly,  the  very  highest  degree  of  credit  is 
to  be  given  to  direct  records.  These  may  be  either  public 
inscribed  monuments,  such  as  have  frequently  been  set  up 
by  governments  and  kings ;  state  papers,  such  as  we  hear 
of  in  the  books  of  Ezra  and  Esther ;  (5°)  letters,  or  books. 
Again,  books  of  this  class  will  be  either  commentaries,  (or 
particular  histories  of  events  in  which  the  authors  have 
taken  part;)  autobiographies,  or  accounts  which  persons 
have  given  of  their  own  lives  up  to  a  certain  point;  or 
memoirs  ;  i.  e.,  accounts  which  persons  have  given  of  those 
with  whom  they  have  had  some  acquaintance.  These  are 
the  best  and  most  authentic  sources  of  history;  and  we 
must  either  be  content  with  them,  or  regard  the  past  as 
absolutely  shrouded  from  our  knowledge  by  a  veil  which  is 
impenetrable.  Indirect  records  —  the  compilations  of  dili 
gent  inquirers  concerning  times  or  scenes  in  which  they 
have  themselves  had  no  part  —  are  to  be  placed  on  a  much 
lower  footing ;  they  must  be  judged  by  their  internal  char 
acter,  by  their  accord  with  what  is  otherwise  known  of  the 
times  or  scenes  in  question,  and  by  the  apparent  veracity 
and  competency  of  their  composers.  They  often  have  a 
high  value ;  but  this  value  cannot  be  assumed  previously  to 
investigation,  depending  as  it  does  almost  entirely  on  the 
critical  judgment  of  their  authors,  on  the  materials  to 
which  they  had  access,  and  on  the  use  that  they  actually 
made  of  them. 

The    force    of    cumulative    evidence    has    often    been 
noticed.    ISTo   account  of  the  grounds  of  historic  belief 

4* 


42  HISTORICAL   EVIDENCES   OP  THE  LECT.  I. 

would  be  complete,  even  in  outline,  which  failed  to  notice 
its  applicability  to  this  field  of  investigation,  and  its  great 
weight  and  importance  in  all  cases  where  it  has  any  place. 
"Probable  proofs,"  says  Bishop  Butler,  "by  being  added,  not 
only  increase  the  evidence,  but  multiply  it."  (51)  When  two 
independent  writers  witness  to  the  same  event,  the  proba 
bility  of  that  event  is  increased,  not  in  an  arithmetical  but 
in  a  geometrical  ratio,  not  by  mere  addition,  but  by  mul 
tiplication.  (52>  "  By  the  mouth  of  two  or  three  witnesses," 
the  word  to  which  such  witness  is  borne  is  " established"  l 
And  the  agreement  is  the  more  valuable  if  it  be  —  so  to 
speak  —  incidental  and  casual;  if  the  two  writers  are  con 
temporary,  and  their  writings  not  known  to  one  another ; 
if  one  only  alludes  to  what  the  other  narrates;  if  one 
appears  to  have  been  an  actor,  and  the  other  merely  a 
looker-on ;  if  one  gives  events,  and  the  other  the  feelings 
which  naturally  arise  out  of  them :  in  these  cases  the  con 
viction  which  springs  up  in  every  candid  and  unprejudiced 
mind  is  absolute ;  the  element  of  doubt  which  hangs  about 
all  matters  of  mere  belief  being  reduced  to  such  infinitesi 
mal  proportions  as  to  be  inappreciable,  and  so,  practically 
speaking,  to  disappear  altogether. 

To  the  four  Canons  which  have  been  already  enumer 
ated  as  the  criteria  of  historic  truth,  modern  Rationalism 
would  add  a  fifth,  an  a  priori  opinion  of  its  own  —  the 
admission  of  which  would  put  a  stop  at  once  to  any  such 
inquiry  as  that  upon  which  we  are  now  entering.  "No 
just  perception  of  the  true  nature  of  history  is  possible,"  we 
are  told,  "without  a  perception  of  the  inviolability  of  the 
chain  of  finite  causes,  and  of  the  impossibility  of  mira 
cles."  (53>  And  the  mythical  interpreters  insist,  that  one 
of  the  essential  marks  of  a  mythical  narrative,  whereby  it 

1  Dent.  xix.  15. 


LECT.  I.         TRUTH  OP  THE  SCRIPTURE  RECORDS.  43 

may  be  clearly  distinguished  from  one  which  is  historical, 
is,  its  "  presenting  an  account  of  events  which  are  either 
absolutely  or  relatively  beyond  the  reach  of  (ordinary) 
experience,  such  as  occurrences  connected  with  the  spir 
itual  world,  or  its  dealing  in  the  supernatural."  (<54)  Now, 
if  miracles  cannot  take  place,  an  inquiry  into  the  historical 
evidences  of  Revealed  Religion  is  vain ;  for  Revelation  is 
itself  miraculous,  and  therefore,  by  the  hypothesis,  impossi 
ble.  But  what  are  the  grounds  upon  which  so  stupendous 
an  assertion  is  made,  as  that  God  cannot,  if  He  so  please, 
suspend  the  working  of  those  laws  by  which  He  commonly 
acts  upon  matter,  and  act  on  special  occasions  differently  ? 
Shall  we  say  that  He  cannot,  because  of  His  own  immuta 
bility  —  because  He  is  a  being  "  with  whom  is  no  variable 
ness,  neither  shadow  of  turning  ?  " l  But,  if  we  apply  the 
notion  of  a  Law  to  God  at  all,  it  is  plain  that  miraculous 
interpositions  on  fitting  occasions  may  be  as  much  a 
regular,  fixed,  and  established  rule  of  His  government,  as 
the  working  ordinarily  by  what  are  called  natural  laws.  Or 
shall  we  say  that  all  experience  and  analogy  is  against  mira 
cles  ?  But  this  is  either  to  judge,  from  our  own  narrow 
and  limited  experience,  of  the  whole  course  of  nature,  and 
so  to  generalize  upon  most  weak  and  insufficient  grounds ; 
or  else,  if  in  the  phrase  "  all  experience "  we  include  the 
experience  of  others,  it  is  to  draw  a  conclusion  directly 
in  the  teeth  of  our  data ;  for  many  persons  well  worthy  of 
belief  have  declared  that  they  have  witnessed  and  wrought 
miracles.  Moreover,  were  it  true  that  all  known  experi 
ence  was  against  miracles,  this  would  not  even  prove  that 
they  had  not  happened  —  much  less  that  they  are  impos 
sible.  If  they  are  impossible,  it  must  be  either  from  some 
thing  in  the  nature  of  things,  or  from  something  in  the 

•James  i.  17. 


44  HISTORICAL   EVIDENCES   OF  THE  LECT.  L 

nature  of  God.  That  the  immutability  of  God  does  not 
stand  in  the  way  of  miracles  has  been  already  shown ;  and  I 
know  of  no  other  attribute  of  the  Divine  Nature  which  can 
be  even  supposed  to  create  a  difficulty.  To  most  minds  it 
will,  if  I  do  not  greatly  mistake,  rather  appear,  that  the 
Divine  Omnipotence  includes  in  it  the  power  of  working 
miracles.  And  if  God  created  the  world,  He  certainly 
once  worked  a  miracle  of  the  most  surpassing  greatness. 
Is  there  then  any  thing  in  the  nature  of  things  to  make 
miracles  impossible  ?  "Not  unless  things  have  an  independ 
ent  existence,  and  work  by  their  own  power.  If  they  are 
in  themselves  nought,  if  God  called  them  out  of  nothing, 
and  but  for  His  sustaining  power  they  would  momentarily 
fall  back  into  nothing ;  if  it  is  not  they  that  work,  but  He 
who  works  in  them  and  through  them;  if  growth,  and 
change,  and  motion,  and  assimilation,  and  decay,  are  His 
dealings  with  matter,  as  sanctification,  and  enlightenment, 
and  inward  comfort,  and  the  gift  of  the  clear  vision  of 
Him,  are  His  dealings  with  ourselves;  if  the  Great  and 
First  Cause  never  deserts  even  for  a  moment  the  second 
Causes,  but  He  who  "  upholdeth  all  things  by  the  word  of 
His  power,"1  and  is  "above  all  and  through  all,"2  is  also  (as 
Hooker  says)  "the  Worker  of  all  in  alPC55) — then  cer 
tainly  things  in  themselves  cannot  oppose  any  impediment 
to  miracles,  or  do  aught  but  obsequiously  follow  the  Divine 
fiat,  be  it  what  it  may.  The  whole  difficulty  with  regard 
to  miracles  has  its  roots  in  a  materialistic  Atheism,  which 
believes  things  to  have  a  force  in  and  of  themselves; 
which  regards  them  as  self-sustaining,  if  not  even  as  self- 
caused  ;  which  deems  them  to  possess  mysterious  powers  of 
their  own  uncontrollable  by  the  Divine  Will ;  which  sees 
in  the  connection  of  physical  cause  and  effect,  not  a 

'Heb.  i.  3.  2Eph.  iv.  6. 


LECT.  I.         TRUTH  OF   THE  SCRIPTURE  RECORDS.  45 

sequence,  not  a  law,  but  a  necessity ;  which,  either  positing 
a  Divine  First  Cause  to  bring  things  into  existence,  then 
(like  Anaxagoras)  makes  no  further  use  of  Him;(56)  or 
does  not  care  to  posit  any  such  First  Cause  at  all,  but  is 
content  to  refer  all  things  to  a  "  course  of  nature,"  which  it 
considers  eternal  and  unalterable,  and  on  which  it  lavishes 
all  the  epithets  that  believers  regard  as  appropriate  to  God, 
and  God  only.  It  is  the  peculiarity  of  Atheism  at  the 
present  day  that  it  uses  a  religious  nomenclature  —  it  is  no 
longer  dry,  and  hard,  and  cold,  all  matter  of  fact  and  com 
mon-sense,  as  was  the  case  in  the  last  century,  —  on  the 
contrary,  it  has  become  warm  in  expression,  poetic,  elo 
quent,  glowing,  sensuous,  imaginative  —  the  "  Course  of 
Nature,"  which  it  has  set  up  in  the  place  of  God,  is  in  a 
certain  sense  deified,  —  no  language  is  too  exalted  to  be 
applied  to  it,  no  admiration  too  great  to  be  excited  by  it  — 
it  is  "  glorious,"  and  "  marvellous,"  and  "  superhuman,"  and 
"heavenly,"  and  "spiritual,"  and  "divine"  —  only  it  is 
"  IT,"  not  "  HE,"  —  a  fact  or  set  of  facts,  and  not  a  Person  ; 
—  and  so  it  can  really  call  forth  no  love,  no  gratitude,  no 
reverence,  no  personal  feeling  of  any  kind  —  it  can  claim 
no  willing  obedience  —  it  can  inspire  no  wholesome  awe  — 
it  is  a  dead  idol  after  all,  and  its  worship  is  but  the  old 
nature  worship,  —  man  returning  in  his  dotage  to  the  fol 
lies  which  beguiled  his  childhood  —  losing  the  Creator  in 
the  creature,  the  Workman  in  the  work  of  his  hands. 

It  cannot  therefore  be  held  on  any  grounds  but  such  as 
involve  a  real,  though  covert  Atheism,  that  miracles  are 
impossible,  or  that  a  narrative  of  which  supernatural  occur 
rences  form  an  essential  part  is  therefore  devoid  of  an  his 
toric  character.  Miracles  are  to  be  viewed  as  in  fact  a  part 
of  the  Divine  Economy,  —  a  part  as  essential  as  any  other, 
though  coming  into  play  less  frequently.  It  has  already 


46  HISTORICAL   EVIDENCES   OF  THE  LECT.  I. 

been  observed,  that  the  creation  of  the  world  was  a  mira 
cle,  or  rather  a  whole  array  of  miracles ;  and  any  true  his 
torical  account  of  it  must  "  deal  in  the  supernatural."  A 
first  man  was  as  great  a  miracle  —  may  we  not  say  a 
greater  miracle  ?  —  than  a  raised  man.  Greater,  inasmuch 
as  to  create  and  unite  a  body  and  soul  is  to  do  more  than 
merely  to  unite  them  when  they  have  been  created.  And 
the  occurrence  of  miracles  at  the  beginning  of  the  world 
established  a  precedent  for  their  subsequent  occurrence 
from  time  to  time  with  greater  or  less  frequency,  as  God 
should  see  to  be  fitting.  Again,  all  history  abounds  in 
statements  that  miracles  have  in  fact  from  time  to  time 
occurred;  and  though  we  should  surrender  to  the  sceptic 
the  whole  mass  of  Heathen  and  Ecclesiastical  miracles, 
which  I  for  one  do  not  hold  to  be  necessary,  (57>  yet  still 
fictitious  miracles  imply  the  existence  of  true  ones,  just  as 
hypocrisy  implies  that  there  is  virtue  To  reject  a  narra 
tive,  therefore,  simply  because  it  contains  miraculous  cir 
cumstances,  is  to  indulge  an  irrational  prejudice  —  a  preju 
dice  which  has  no  foundation,  either  in  a  priori  truths  or 
in  the  philosophy  of  experience,  and  which  can  only  be 
consistently  held  by  one  who  disbelieves  in  God. 

The  rejection  of  this  negative  Canon,  which  a  pseudo- 
critical  School  has  boldly  but  vainly  put  forward  for  the 
furtherance  of  its  own  views  with  respect  to  the  Christian 
scheme,  but  which  no  historian  of  repute  has  adopted  since 
the  days  of  Gibbon,  will  enable  us  to  proceed  without  fur 
ther  delay  to  that  which  is  the  special  business  of  these 
Lectures  —  the  examination,  by  the  light  of  those  Canons 
whose  truth  has  been  admitted,  of  the  historic  evidences 
of  Revealed  Religion.  The  actual  examination  must,  how 
ever,  be  reserved  for  future  Lectures.  Time  will  not  per 
mit  of  my  attempting  to  do  more  in  the  brief  remainder  of 


LECT.  I.          TRUTH   OF   THE   SCRIPTURE  RECORDS.  47 

the  present  Discourse  than  simply  to  point  out  the  chief 
kinds  or  branches  into  which  the  evidence  divides  itself, 
and  to  indicate,  somewhat  more  clearly  than  has  as  yet  been 
done,  the  method  which  will  be  pursued  in  the  examina 
tion  of  it. 

The  sacred  records  themselves  are  the  main  proof  of  the 
events  related  in  them.  Waiving  the  question  of  their 
inspiration,  I  propose  to  view  them  simply  as  a  mass  of 
documents,  subject  to  the  laws,  and  to  be  judged  by  the 
principles,  of  historical  criticism ;  I  shall  briefly  discuss 
their  genuineness,  where  it  has  been  called  in  question, 
and  vindicate  their  authenticity.  Where  two  or  more 
documents  belong  to  the  same  time,  I  shall  endeavor  to 
exhibit  some  of  their  most  remarkable  points  of  agree 
ment  :  I  shall  not,  however,  dwell  at  much  length  on  this 
portion  of  the  inquiry.  It  is  of  preeminent  importance, 
but  its  preeminence  has  secured  it  a  large  amount  of  atten 
tion  on  the  part  of  Christian  writers ;  and  I  cannot  hope 
to  add  much  to  the  labors  of  those  who  have  preceded  me 
in  this  field.  There  is,  however,  a  second  and  distinct 
kind  of  evidence,  which  has  not  (I  think)  received  of  late 
as  much  consideration  as  it  deserves  —  I  mean  the  external 
evidence  to  the  truth  of  the  Bible  records,  whether  con 
tained  in  monuments,  in  the  works  of  profane  writers,  in 
customs  and  observances  now  existing  or  known  to  have 
existed,  or  finally  in  the  works  of  believers  nearly  contem 
porary  with  any  of  the  events  narrated.  The  evidence 
under  some  of  these  heads  has  recently  received  important 
accessions,  and  fresh  light  has  been  thrown  in  certain  cases 
on  the  character  and  comparative  value  of  the  writers.  It 
seems  to  be  time  to  bid  the  nations  of  the  earth  once  more 
"bring  forth  their  witnesses,"  and  "declare"  and  "show 
us"  what  it  is  which  they  record  of  the  "former  things"  — 


48  TRUTH   OF   THE   SCRIPTURE  RECORDS.          LECT.  I. 

that  they  may  at  once  justify  and  "be  justified"  —  in  part 
directly  confirming  the  Scripture  narrative,  in  part  silent 
but  not  adverse,  content  to  "  hear,  and  say,  '  It  is  truth.' " 
"  Ye  are  my  witnesses,  saith  the  Lord  "  —  even  "  the  blind 
people,  that  have  eyes ;  and  the  deaf,  that  have  ears "  — 
"Ye  are  my  witnesses  —  and  my  servant  whom  I  have 
chosen."1  The  testimony  of  the  sacred  and  the  profane  is 
not  conflicting,  but  consentient  —  and  the  comparison  of 
the  two  will  show,  not  discord,  but  harmony. 

1  Isaiah  xliii.  8,  10. 


LECTURE    II. 

INQUIRE,  I  PRAY  THEE,  OF  THE  FORMER  AGE,  AND  PREPARE  THYSELF 
TO  THE  SEARCH  OF  THEIR  FATHERS  J  (FOR  WE  ARE  BUT  OF  YESTER 
DAY,  AND  KNOW  NOTHING,  BECAUSE  OUR  DAYS  UPON  EARTH  ARE  A 
SHADOW  ;)  SHALL  NOT  THEY  TEACH  THEE,  AND  TELL  THEE,  AND  UTTER 
WORDS  OUT  OF  THEIR  HEART? — JOB  VIII.  VERSES  8  TO  10. 

IN  every  historical  inquiry  it  is  possible  to  pursue  our 
researches  in  two  ways  :  we  may  either  trace  the  stream  of 
time  upwards,  and  pursue  history  to  its  earliest  source ;  or 
we  may  reverse  the  process,  and  beginning  at  the  fountain- 
head  follow  down  the  course  of  events  in  chronological 
order  to  our  own  day.  The  former  is  the  more  philosophi 
cal,  because  the  more  real  and  genuine  method  of  proce 
dure  :  it  is  the  course  which  in  the  original  investigation  of 
the  subject  must,  in  point  of  fact,  have  been  pursued :  the 
present  is  our  standing  point,  and  we  necessarily  view  the 
past  from  it ;  and  only  know  so  much  of  the  past  as  we 
connect,  more  or  less  distinctly,  with  it.  But  the  opposite 
process  has  certain  advantages  which  cause  it  commonly  to 
be  preferred.  It  is  the  order  of  the  actual  occurrence,  and 
therefore  has  an  objective  truth  which  the  other  lacks.  It 
is  the  simpler  and  clearer  of  the  two,  being  synthetic  and 
not  analytic;  commencing  with  little,  it  proceeds  by  con 
tinual  accretion,  thus  adapting  itself  to  our  capacities, 
which  cannot  take  in  much  at  once ;  and  further,  it  has  the 
advantage  of  conducting  us  out  of  comparative  darkness 
into  a  light  which  brightens  and  broadens  as  we  keep 

5  («) 


50  HISTORICAL   EVIDENCES   OF  THE  LECT.  II. 

advancing,  "shining  more  and  more  unto  the  perfect  day."1 
Its  difficulties  and  inconveniences  are  at  the  first  outset, 
when  we  plunge  as  it  were  into  a  world  unknown,  and 
seek  in  the  dim  twilight  of  the  remote  past  for  some  sure 
and  solid  ground  upon  which  to  plant  our  foot.  On  the 
whole  there  is  perhaps  sufficient  reason  for  conforming  to 
the  ordinary  practice,  and  adopting  the  actual  order  of  the 
occurrences  as  that  of  the  examination  upon  which  we  are 
entering. 

It  will  be  necessary,  however,  in  order  to  bring  within 
reasonable  compass  the  vast  field  that  offers  itself  to  us  for 
investigation,  to  divide  the  history  which  is  to  be  reviewed 
into  periods,  which  may  be  successively  considered  in  their 
entirety.  The  division  which  the  sacred  writings  seem  to 
suggest  is  into  five  such  periods.  The  first  of  these  ex 
tends  from  the  Creation  to  the  death  of  Moses,  being  the 
period  of  which  the  history  is  delivered  to  us  in  the  Penta 
teuch.  The  second  extends  from  the  death  of  Moses  to 
the  accession  of  Rehoboam,  and  is  treated  in  Joshua, 
Judges,  Ruth,  the  two  Books  of  Samuel,  and  some  por 
tions  of  the  Books  of  Kings  and  Chronicles.  The  third  is 
the  period  from  the  accession  of  Rehoboam  to  the  Captiv 
ity  of  Judah,  which  is  treated  of  in  the  remainder  of  Kings 
and  Chronicles,  together  with  portions  of  Isaiah,  Jeremiah, 
Ezekiel,  Hosea,  Joel,  Amos,  Jonah,  Micah,  Nahum,  and 
Zephaniah.  The  fourth  extends  from  the  Captivity  to  the 
reform  of  Nehemiah;  and  its  history  is  contained  in  Dan 
iel,  Ezra,  Esther,  and  Nehemiah,  and  illustrated  by  Haggai 
and  Zechariah.  The  fifth  is  the  period  of  the  life  of  Christ 
and  the  preaching  and  establishment  of  Christianity,  of 
which  the  history  is  given  in  the  New  Testament.  The 
first  four  periods  will  form  the  subject  of  the  present  and 

'Proverbs  iv.  18. 


LECT.  II.        TRUTH  OF  THE  SCRIPTURE  RECORDS.  51 

three  following  Lectures.  The  fifth  period,  from  its  supe 
rior  importance,  will  require  to  be  treated  at  greater 
length.  Its  examination  is  intended  to  occupy  the  remain 
der  of  the  present  Course. 

The  sacred  records  of  the  first  period  have  come  down  to 
us  in  the  shape  of  five  Books,  the  first  of  which  is  introduc 
tory,  while  the  remaining  four  present  us  with  the  history 
of  an  individual,  Moses,  and  of  the  Jewish  people  under  his 
guidance.  Critically  speaking,  it  is  of  the  last  importance 
to  know  by  whom  the  books  which  contain  this  history 
were  written.  Now  the  ancient,  positive,  and  uniform  tra 
dition  of  the  Jews  assigned  the  authorship  of  the  five 
books,  (or  Pentateuch,)  with  the  exception  of  the  last 
chapter  of  Deuteronomy,  to  Moses  ;(*)  and  this  tradition  is 
prima  facie  evidence  of  the  fact,  such  as  at  least  throws 
the  burden  of  proof  upon  those  who  call  it  in  question.  It 
is  an  admitted  rule  of  all  sound  criticism,  that  books  are  to 
be  regarded  as  proceeding  from  the  writers  whose  names 
they  bear,  unless  very  strong  reasons  indeed  can  be  ad 
duced  to  the  contrary.  (2)  In  the  present  instance,  the 
reasons  which  have  been  urged  are  weak  and  puerile  in 
the  extreme ;  they  rest  in  part  on  misconceptions  of  the 
meaning  of  passages,^  in  part,  upon  interpolations  into 
the  original  text,  which  are  sometimes  very  plain  and  pal- 
paple.  (4>  Mainly,  however,  they  have  their  source  in  arbi 
trary  and  unproved  hypotheses,  as  that  a  contemporary 
writer  would  not  have  introduced  an  account  of  mira 
cles  ;  (5)  that  the  culture  indicated  by  the  book  is  beyond 
that  of  the  age  of  Moses ;  (6>  that  if  Moses  had  written  the 
book,  he  would  not  have  spoken  of  himself  in  the  third 
person  ;(7)  that  he  would  have  given  a  fuller  and  more 
complete  account  of  his  own  history ;  (8)  and  that  he  would 
not  have  applied  to  himself  terms  of  praise  and  expressions 


52  HISTORICAL   EVIDENCES   OF   THE  LECT.  II. 

of  honor.  (9)  It  is  enough  to  observe  of  these  objections, 
that  they  are  such  as  might  equally  be  urged  against  the 
genuineness  of  St.  Paul's  epistles,  which  is  allowed  even  by 
Strauss  (10) —  against  that  of  the  works  of  Homer,  Chaucer, 
and  indeed  of  all  writers  in  advance  of  their  age  —  against 
Cajsar's  Commentaries,  and  Xenophon's  Expedition  of 
Cyrus  —  against  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles,  (n)  and  against 
the  Gospel  of  St.  John.  St.  Paul  relates  contemporary 
miracles ;  Homer  and  Chaucer  exhibit  a  culture  and  a  tone 
which,  but  for  them,  we  should  have  supposed  unattaina 
ble  in  their  age;  Caesar  and  Xonophon  write  throughout 
in  the  third  person ;  St.  Luke  omits  all  account  of  his  own 
doings  at  Philippi;  St.  John  applies  to  himself  the  most 
honorable  of  all  titles  —  "the  disciple  whom  Jesus  loved."1 
A.  priori  conceptions  of  how  an  author  of  a  certain  time 
and  country  would  write,  of  what  he  would  say  or  not  say, 
or  how  he  would  express  himself,  are  among  the  weakest 
of  all  presumptions,  and  must  be  regarded  as  outweighed 
by  a  very  small  amount  of  positive  testimony  to  author 
ship.  Moreover,  for  an  argument  of  this  sort  to  have  any 
force  at  all,  it  is  necessary  that  we  should  possess,  from 
other  sources  besides  the  author  who  is  being  judged,  a 
tolerably  complete  knowledge  of  the  age  to  which  lie  is 
assigned,  and  a  fair  acquaintance  with  the  literature  of  his 
period.  (12)  In  the  case  of  Moses  our  knowledge  of  the  age 
is  exceedingly  limited,  while  of  the  literature  we  have 
scarcely  any  knowledge  at  all,(13)  beyond  that  which  is 
furnished  by  the  sacred  records  next  in  succession  —  the 
Books  of  Joshua  and  Judges,  and  (perhaps)  the  Book  of 
Job  —  and  these  are  so  far  from  supporting  the  notion  that 
such  a  work  as  the  Pentateuch  could  not  be  produced  in 
the  age  of  Moses,  that  they  furnish  a  very  strong  argument 

1  John  xiii.  23  ;  xix.  26,  &c. 


LECT.  II.        TRUTH   OF   THE   SCRIPTURE   RECORDS.  53 

to  the  contrary.  The  diction  of  the  Pentateuch  is  older 
than  that  of  Joshua  and  Judges,  (14>  while  its  ideas  are  pre 
supposed  in  those  writings,  (15)  which  may  be  said  to  be 
based  upon  it,  and  to  require  it  as  their  antecedent.  If, 
then,  they  could  be  written  at  the  time  to  which  they  are 
commonly  and  (as  will  be  hereafter  shown)  rightly  as 
signed,  (1G)  the  Pentateuch  not  only  may,  but  must,  be  as 
early  as  Moses. 

Vague  doubts  have  sometimes  been  thrown  out  as  to 

O 

the  existence  of  writings  at  this  period.  (1?)  The  evidence 
of  the  Mosaic  records  themselves,  if  the  true  date  of  their 
composition  were  allowed,  would  be  conclusive  upon  the 
point;  for  they  speak  of  writing  as  a  common  practice. 
Waiving  this  evidence,  we  may  remark  that  hieroglyphical 
inscriptions  upon  stone  were  known  in  Egypt  at  least  as 
early  as  the  fourth  dynasty,  or  B.  C.  2450,  (18>  that  inscribed 
bricks  were  common  in  Babylonia  about  two  centuries 
later,  (19)  and  that  writing  upon  papyruses,  both  in  the  hie 
roglyphic  and  hieratic  characters,  was  familiar  to  the  Egyp 
tians  under  the  eighteenth  and  nineteenth  dynasties,  (20> 
which  is  exactly  the  time  to  which  the  Mosaic  records 
would,  if  genuine,  belong.  It  seems  certain  that  Moses,  if 
educated  by  a  daughter  of  one  of  the  Ramesside  kings,  and 
therefore  "learned"  (as  we  are  told  he  was)  "in  all  the 
wisdom  of  Egypt,"1  would  be  well  acquainted  with  the 
Egyptian  method  of  writing  with  ink  upon  the  papyrus ; 
while  it  is  also  probable  that  Abraham,  who  emigrated  not 
earlier  than  the  nineteeth  century  before  our  era  from  the 
great  Chaldean  capital,  Ur,  would  have  brought  with  him 
and  transmitted  to  his  descendants  the  alphabetic  system 
with  which  the  Chaldaeans  of  his  day  were  acquainted.  (21) 
There  is  thus  every  reason  to  suppose  that  writing  was 

1  Acts  vii.  22. 
5* 


54  HISTORICAL    EVIDENCES   OF   THE  LfiCT.  II. 

familiar  to  the  Jews  when  they  quitted  Egypt;  and  the 
mention  of  it  as  a  common  practice  in  the  books  of  Moses 
is  in  perfect  accordance  with  what  we  know  of  the  condi 
tion  of  the  world  at  the  time  from  other  sources. 

To  the  unanimous  witness  of  the  Jews  with  respect  to 
the  authorship  of  the  Pentateuch  may  be  added  the  testi 
mony  of  a  number  of  heathen  writers.  Hecatseus  of  Ab- 
dera,  C22)  Manetho,  (23^  Lysimachus  of  Alexandria,  (24)  Eupol- 
emtis/25)  Tacitus/26)  Juvenal,  C27)  Longinus,  (28>  all  ascribe 
to  Moses  the  institution  of  that  code  of  laws  by  which  the 
Jews  were  distinguished  from  other  nations ;  and  the  ma 
jority  distinctly  C29)  note  that  he  committed  his  laws  to 
writing.  These  authors  cover  a  space  extending  from  the 
time  of  Alexander,  when  the  Greeks  first  became  curious 
on  the  subject  of  Jewish  history,  to  that  of  the  emperor 
Aurelian,  when  the  literature  of  the  Jews  had  been  thor 
oughly  sifted  by  the  acute  and  learned  Alexandrians. 
They  constitute,  not  the  full  voice  of  heathenism  on  the 
subject,  but  only  an  indication  of  what  that  voice  was.  It 
cannot  be  doubted  that  if  we  had  the  complete  works  of 
those  many  other  writers  to  whom  Josephus,  Clement,  and 
Eusebius  refer  as  mentioning  Moses,  (3°)  we  should  find  the 
amount  of  heathen  evidence  on  this  point  greatly  increased. 
Moreover,  we  must  bear  in  mind  that  the  witness  is  unani 
mous,  or  all  but  unanimous.  <31>  Nor  is  it,  as  an  objector 
might  be  apt  to  urge,  the  mere  echo  of  Jewish  tradition 
faintly  repeating  itself  from  far  oif  lands  ;  in  part  at  least  it 
rests  upon  a  distinct  and  even  hostile  authority  —  that  of 
the  Egyptians.  Manetho  certainly,  and  Lysimachus  proba 
bly,  represent  Egyptian,  and  not  Jewish,  views ;  and  thus 
the  Jewish  tradition  is  confirmed  by  that  of  the  only  na 
tion  which  was  sufficiently  near  and  sufficiently  advanced 
in  the  Mosaic  age  to  mnke  its  testimony  on  the  point  of 
ir:il  importance. 


LECT.  II.        TRUTH   OF   THE   SCRIPTURE   RECORDS.  55 

To  the  external  testimony  which  has  been  now  adduced' 
must  be  added  the  internal  testimony  of  the  work  itself, 
which  repeatedly  speaks  of  Moses  as  writing  the  law,  and 
recording  the  various  events  and  occurrences  in  a  book, 
and  as  reading  from  this  book  to  the  peopled32)  The 
modern  rationalist  regards  it  as  a  "  most  unnatural  suppo 
sition,"  that  the  Pentateuch  was  written  during  the  pas 
sage  of  the  Israelites  through  the  wilderness ;  <33)  but  this  is 
what  every  unprejudiced  reader  gathers  from  the  Penta 
teuch  itself,  which  tells  us  that  God  commanded  Moses  to 
"  write "  the  discomfiture  of  Amalek  "  in  a  book ; " l  that 
Moses  "  wrote  all  the  words  of  the  law," 2  and  "  took  the 
book  of  the  covenant,  and  read  it  in  the  audience  of  the 
people,"3  and  "wrote  the  goings  out  of  the  people  of  Israel 
according  to  their  journeys,  by  the  commandment  of  the 
Lord ; " 4  and,  finally,  "  made  an  end  of  writing  the  words 
of  the  law  in  a  book,  until  they  were  finished ; " 5  and  bade 
the  Levites,  who  bare  the  ark  of  the  covenant,  "take  that 
book  of  the  law,  and  put  it  in  the  side  of  the  ark  of  the 
covenant  of  the  Lord,  that  it  might  be  there  for  a  witness 
against  the  people." 6  A  book,  therefore  —  a  "  book  of  the 
covenant"  —  a  book  out  of  which  he  could  read  the  whole 
law(34)  —  was  certainly  written  by  Moses;  and  this  book 
was  deposited  in  the  ark  of  the  covenant,  and  given  into 
the  special  custody  of  the  Levites,  who  bare  it,  with  the 
stern  injunction  still  ringing  in  their  ears,  "Ye  shall  not 
add  unto  the  word,  neither  diminish  aught  from  it ; " 7  and 
they  were  charged  "  at  the  end  of  every  seven  years,  in  the 
year  of  release,  in  the  feast  of  tabernacles,  to  read  it  before 
all  Israel  in  their  hearing;"8  and,  further,  a  command  was 

1  Exod.  xvii.  14.  2  Ibid.  xxiv.  4.  3  Ibid.  vcr.  7. 

4  Numb,  xxxiii.  2.  5  Deut.  xxxi.  24.          6  Ibid.  ver.  26. 

7  Dent.  iv.  2.  8  Ibid.  xxxi.  10,  11. 


56  HISTORICAL  EVIDENCES  OP  THE  LECT.  H. 

given,  that,  when  the  Israelites  should  have  kings,  each 
king  should  "  write  him  a  copy  of  the  law  in  a  book,  out  of 
that  which  was  before  the  priests  the  Levites,  that  he 
might  read  therein  all  the  days  of  his  life." *  Unless,  there 
fore,  we  admit  the  Pentateuch  to  be  genuine,  we  must 
suppose  that  the  book  which  (according  to  the  belief  of 
the  Jews)  Moses  wrote,  which  was  placed  in  the  ark  of 
God,  over  which  the  Levites  were  to  watch  with  such 
jealous  care,  which  was  to  be  read  to  the  people  once 
in  each  seven  years,  and  which  was  guarded  by  awful 
sanctions  from  either  addition  to  it  or  diminution  from 
it  —  we  must  suppose,  I  say,  that  this  book  perished;  and 
that  another  book  was  substituted  in  its  place  —  by  an 
unknown  author  —  for  unknown  objects  —  professing  to  be 
the  work  of  Moses,  (for  that  is  allowed,)  (35)  and  believed  to 
be  his  work  thenceforth,  without  so  much  as  a  doubt  being 
breathed  on  the  subject  either  by  the  nation,  its  teachers, 
or  even  its  enemies,  for  many  hundreds  of  years.  (3G)  It  has 
often  been  remarked,  that  the  theories  of  those  who  assail 
Christianity,  make  larger  demands  upon  the  faith  of  such 
as  embrace  them  than  the  Christian  scheme  itself,  marvel 
lous  as  it  is  in  many  points.  Certainly,  few  suppositions 
can  be  more  improbable  than  that  to  which  (as  we  have 
seen)  those  who  deny  the  Pentateuch  to  be  genuine  must 
have  recourse,  when  pressed  to  account  for  the  phenomena. 
It  is  not  surprising  that,  having  to  assign  a  time  for  the 
introduction  of  the  forged  volume,  they  have  varied  as  to 
the  date  which  they  suggest  by  above  a  thousand  years, 
while  they  also  differ  from  one  another  in  every  detail  with 
which  they  venture  to  clothe  the  transaction.  (37) 

I  have  dwelt  the  longer  upon  the  genuineness  of  the 
Pentateuch,  because  it  is  admitted,  even  by  the  extremist 

1  Deut.  xvii.  18,  19. 


LECT.  II.        TRUTH  OF  THE   SCRIPTURE  RECORDS.  57 

sceptics,  that  the  genuineness  of  the  work  carries  with  it 
the  authenticity  of  the  narrative,  at  least  in  all'  its  main 
particulars.  "  It  would  most  unquestionably,"  says  Strauss, 
"be  an  argument  of  decisive  weight  in  favor  of  the  credi 
bility  of  the  Biblical  history,  could  it  indeed  be  shown  that 
it  was  written  by  eye-witnesses."  "  Moses,  being  the  leader 
of  the  Israelites  on  their  departure  from  Egypt,  would 
undoubtedly  give  a  faithful  history  of  the  occurrences, 
unless "  (which  is  not  pretended)  "  he  designed  to  deceive." 
And  further,  "  Moses,  if  his  intimate  connection  with  Deity 
described  in  these  books"  (i.  e.  the  last  four)  "be  histori 
cally  true,  was  likewise  eminently  qualified,  by  virtue  of 
such  connection,  to  produce  a  credible  history  of  the  earlier 
periods."  (3?)  If  Moses  indeed  wrote  the  account  which  we 
possess  of  the  Exodus  and  of  the  wanderings  in  the  wilder 
ness;  and  if,  having  written  it,  he  delivered  it  to  those 
who  knew  the  events  as  well  as  he,  the  conditions,  which 
secure  the  highest  degree  of  historical  credibility,  so  far  at 
least  as  regards  the  events  of  the  last  four  books,  are  ob 
tained.  We  have  for  them  the  direct  witness  of  a  contem 
porary  writer  —  not  an  actor  only,  but  the  leader  in  the 
transactions  which  he  relates  —  honest  evidently,  for  he 
records  his  own  sins  and  defects,  and  the  transgressions 
and  sufferings  of  his  people ;  and  honest  necessarily,  for  he 
writes  of  events  which  were  public  and  known  to  all  —  we 
have  a  work,  which,  by  the  laws  of  historical  criticism,  is 
thus  for  historical  purposes  just  as  reliable  as  Cesar's  Com 
mentaries  or  Xenophon's  Retreat  of  the  Ten  Thousand  — 
we  have  that  rare  literary  treasure,  the  autobiography  of  a 
great  man,  engaged  in  great  events,  the  head  of  his  nation 
at  a  most  critical  period  in  their  annals ;  who  commits  to 
writing  as  they  occur  the  various  events  and  transactions 
in  which  he  is  engaged,  wherever  they  have  a  national  or 


58  HISTORICAL    EVIDENCES   OF   THE  LECT.  H. 

public  character.  (38>  We  must  therefore  consider,  even 
setting  aside  the  whole  idea  of  inspiration,  that  we  possess 
in  the  last  four  books  of  the  Pentateuch  as  reliable  an  ac 
count  of  the  Exodus  of  the  Jews,  and  their  subsequent 
wanderings,  as  we  do,  in  the  works  of  Caesar  and  Xeno- 
phon,  of  the  conquest  of  Britain,  or  of  the  events  which 
preceded  and  followed  the  battle  of  Cunaxa. 

The  narrative  of  Genesis  stands  undoubtedly  on  a  dif 
ferent  footing.  Our  confidence  in  it  must  ever  rest  mainly 
on  our  conviction  of  the  inspiration  of  the  writer.  Still, 
setting  that  aside,  and  continuing  to  judge  the  documents 
as  if  they  were  ordinary  historical  materials,  it  is  to  be 
noted,  in  the  first  place,  that,  as  Moses  was  on  the  mother's 
side  grandson  to  Levi,  he  would  naturally  possess  that  fair 
knowledge  of  the  time  of  the  first  going  down  into  Egypt, 
and  of  the  history  of  Joseph,  which  the  most  sceptical  of 
the  historical  critics  allow  that  men  have  of  their  own 
family  and  nation  to  the  days  of  their  grandfathers.  (39>  He 
would  thus  be  as  good  an  historical  authority  for  the  de 
tails  of  Joseph's  story,  and  for  the  latter  part  of  the  life  of 
Jacob,  as  Herodotus  for  the  reign  of  Cambyses,  or  Fabius 
Pictor  for  the  third  Samnite  War.  Again,  with  respect  to 
the  earlier  history,  it  is  to  be  borne  in  mind  through  how 
very  few  hands,  according  to  the  numbers  in  the  Hebrew 
text,  this  passed  to  Moses.  (4°)  Adam,  according  to  the 
Hebrew  original,  was  for  two  hundred  and  forty-three  years 
contemporary  with  Methuselah,  who  conversed  for  one 
hundred  years  with  Shem.  Shem  was  for  fifty  years  con 
temporary  with  Jacob,  who  probably  saw  Jochebed,  Moses' 
mother.  Thus  Moses  might,  by  mere  oral  tradition,  have 
obtained  the  history  of  Abraham,  and  even  of  the  Deluge, 
at  third  hand ;  and  that  of  the  Temptation  and  the  Fall, 
at  fifth  hand.  The  patriarchal  longevity  had  the  effect  of 


LECT.  II.        TRUTH   OF   THE   SCRIPTURE   RECORDS.  59 

reducing  centuries  to  little  more  than  lustres,  so  far  as  the 
safe  transmission  of  historical  events  was  concerned ;  for 
this  does  not  depend  either  upon  years  or  upon  genera 
tions,  but  upon  the  number  of  links  in  the  chain  through 
which  the  transmittal  takes  place.  If  it  be  granted,  as  it 
seems  to  be,  (41)  that  the  great  and  stirring  events  in  a 
nation's  life  will,  under  ordinary  circumstances,  be  remem 
bered  (apart  from  all  written  memorials)  for  the  space  of 
one  hundred  and  fifty  years,  being  handed  down  through 
five  generations,  it  must  be  allowed  (even  on  mere  human 
grounds)  that  the  account  which  Moses  gives  of  the  Temp 
tation  and  the  Fall  is  to  be  depended  on,  if  it  passed 
through  no  more  than  four  hands  between  him  and  Adam. 
And  the  argument  is  of  course  stronger  for  the  more  re 
cent  events,  since  they  would  have  passed  through  fewer 
hands  than  the  earlier.  (42) 

And  this,  be  it  remembered,  is  on  the  supposition  that 
the  sole  human  source  from  which  Moses  composed  the 
Book  of  Genesis  was  oral  tradition.  But  it  is  highly  prob 
able  that  he  also  made  use  of  documents.  So  much  fanciful 
speculation  has  been  advanced,  so  many  vain  and  baseless 
theories  have  been  built  up,  in  connection  with  what  is 
called  the  "  document-hypothesis  "  concerning  Genesis,  C43) 
that  I  touch  the  point  with  some  hesitation,  and  beg  at 
once  to  be  understood  as  not  venturing  to  dogmatize  in  a 
matter  of  such  difficulty.  But  both  a  priori  probability, 
and  the  internal  evidence,  seem  to  me  to  favor  the  opinion 
of  Vitringa  (44)  and  Calmet,  (45>  that  Moses  consulted  monu 
ments  or  records  of  former  ages,  which  had  descended  from 
the  families  of  the  patriarchs,  and  by  collecting,  arranging, 
adorning,  and,  where  they  were  deficient,  completing  them, 
composed  his  history.  What  we  know  of  the  antiquity  of 
writing,  both  in  Egypt  and  Babylonia,  (4G>  renders  it  not 


60  HISTORICAL   EVIDENCES    OF   THE  LECT.  II. 

improbable  that  the  art  was  known  and  practised  soon  after 
the  Flood,  if  it  was  not  even  (as  some  have  supposed)  a 
legacy  from  the  antediluvian  world.  (47)  Abraham  can 
scarcely  have  failed  to  bring  with  him  into  Palestine  a 
knowledge  which  had  certainly  been  possessed  by  the 
citizens  of  Ur  for  several  hundred  years  before  he  set  out 
on  his  wanderings.  And  if  it  be  said  that  the  art,  though 
known,  might  not  have  been  applied  to  historical  records  in 
the  family  of  Abraham  at  this  early  date,  —  yet,  at  any  rate, 
when  the  Israelites  descended  into  Egypt,  and  found  writ 
ing  in  such  common  use,  and  historical  records  so  abundant 
as  they  can  be  proved  to  have  been  in  that  country  at  that 
period,  it  is  scarcely  conceivable  that  they  should  not  have 
reduced  to  a  written  form  the  traditions  of  their  race,  the 
memory  of  which  their  residence  in  a  foreign  land  would 
be  apt  to  endanger.  And  these  probabilities  are  quite  in 
accordance  with  what  appears  in  the  Book  of  Genesis 
itself.  The  great  fulness  with  which  the  history  of  Joseph 
is  given,  and  the  mimitice  into  which  it  enters,  mark  it  as 
based  upon  a  contemporary,  or  nearly  contemporary,  biog 
raphy  ;  and  the  same  may  be  said  with  almost  equal  force 
of  the  histories  of  Jacob,  Isaac,  and  even  Abraham. 
Further,  there  are  several  indications  of  separate  docu 
ments  in  the  earlier  part  of  Genesis,  as  the  superscriptions 
or  headings  of  particular  portions,  the  change  of  appella 
tion  by  which  the  Almighty  is  distinguished,  and  the  like  ; 
which,  if  they  do  not  certainly  mark  different  documents, 
at  least  naturally  suggest  them.  If  we  then  upon  these 
grounds  accept  Yitringa's  theory,  we  elevate  considerably 
what  I  may  call  the  human  authority  of  Genesis.  Instead 
of  being  the  embodiment  of  oral  traditions  wjiich  have 
passed  through  two,  three,  four,  or  perhaps  more  hands, 
previously  to  their  receiving  a  written  form,  the  Book  of 


LECT.  II.        TRUTH   OP  THE  SCRIPTURE  RECORDS.  61 

Genesis  becomes  a  work  based  in  the  main  upon  contem 
porary,  or  nearly  contemporary,  documents  —  documents 
of  which  the  venerable  antiquity  casts  all  other  ancient 
writings  into  the  shade,  several  of  them  dating  probably 
from  times  not  far  removed  from  the  Flood,  while  some 
may  possibly  descend  to  us  from  the  antediluvian  race. 
The  sanction  which  the  Book  of  Genesis  thus  obtains  is 
additional,  it  must  be  remembered,  to  what  it  derives  from 
Moses ;  who  is  still  the  responsible  author  of  the  work ; 
who  selected  the  documents,  and  gave  them  all  the  con 
firmation  which  they  could  derive  from  his  authority, 
whether  it  be  regarded  as  divine  or  human,  as  that  of  one 
"learned"  in  man's  "wisdom,"1  or  that  of  an  inspired 
teacher  —  "a  prophet,  raised  up  by  God." 2 

Thus  far  we  have  been  engaged  in  considering  the 
weight  which  properly  attaches  to  the  Pentateuch  itself, 
viewed  as  an  historical  work  produced  by  a  certain  indi 
vidual,  under  certain  circumstances,  and  at  a  certain  period. 
It  remains  to  examine  the  external  evidence  to  the  charac 
ter  of  the  Mosaic  narrative  which  is  furnished  by  the  other 
ancient  records  in  our  possession,  so  far  at  least  as  those 
records  have  a  fair  claim  to  be  regarded  as  of  any  real  his 
toric  value. 

Records  possessing  even  moderate  pretensions  to  the 
character  of  historic  are,  for  this  early  period,  as  we  should 
expect  beforehand,  extremely  scanty.  I  cannot  reckon  in 
the  number  either  the  primitive  traditions  of  the  Greeks, 
the  curious  compilations  of  the  Armenians,  C48)  the  histori 
cal  poems  of  the  Hindoos,  (49)  or  the  extravagant  fables  of 
the  Chinese.  (5°)  A  dim  knowledge  of  certain  great  events 
in  primeval  history  —  as  of  the  Deluge  —  may  indeed  be 
traced  in  all  these  quarters ;  (51)  but  the  historical  element 

1  Acts  vii.  22.  2  Deut.  xviii.  15. 

6 


62  HISTORICAL  EVIDENCES   OF  THE  LECT.  II. 

to  be  detected  is  in  every  case  so  small,  it  is  so  overlaid  by 
fable,  and  intermixed  with  what  is  palpably  imaginative, 
that  no  manner  of  reliance  can  be  placed  upon  statements 
merely  because  they  occur  in  these  pretended  histories ;  nor 
have  they  the  slightest  title  to  be  used  as  tests  whereby  to 
try  the  authenticity  of  any  other  narrative.  The  only  re 
liable  materials  that  we  possess,  besides  the  Pentateuch,  for 
the  history  of  the  period  which  it  embraces,  consist  of  some 
fragments  of  Berosus  and  Manetho,  an  epitome  of  the 
early  Egyptian  history  of  the  latter,  a  certain  number  of 
Egyptian  and  Babylonian  inscriptions,  and  two  or  three 
valuable  papyri. 

If  it  be  asked  on  what  grounds  so  strong  a  preference  is 
assigned  to  these  materials,  the  answer  is  easy.  The 
records  selected  are  those  of  Egypt  and  Babylon.  Now 
these  two  countries  were,  according  to  the  most  trust 
worthy  accounts,  both  sacred  and  profane,  (52)  the  first 
seats  of  civilization :  in  them  writing  seems  to  have  been 
practised  earlier  than  elsewhere ;  they  paid  from  the  first 
great  attention  to  history,  and  possessed,  when  the  Greeks 
became  acquainted  with  them,  historical  records  of  an 
antiquity  confessedly  greater  than  that  which  could  be 
claimed  for  any  documents  elsewhere.  Further,  in  each  of 
these  countries,  at  the  moment  when,  in  consequence  of 
Grecian  conquest  and  the  infusion  of  new  ideas,  there  was 
the  greatest  danger  of  the  records  perishing  or  being 
vitiated,  there  arose  a  man  —  a  native  —  thoroughly  ac 
quainted  with  their  antiquities,  and  competently  skilled  in 
the  Greek  language,  who  transferred  to  that  tongue,  and 
thus  made  the  common  property  of  mankind,  what  had 
previously  been  a  hidden  treasure  —  the  possession  of  their 
own  priests  and  philosophers  only.  The  value  of  the 
histories  written  by  Manetho  the  Sebennyte,  and  Berosus 


LECT.  II.        TRUTH   OF  THE  SCRIPTURE  RECORDS.  63 

the  Chaldsean,  had  long  been  suspected  by  the  learned ;  C53) 
but  it  remained  for  the  present  age  to  obtain  distinct  evi 
dence  of  their  fidelity  —  evidence  which  places  them, 
among  the  historians  of  early  times,  in  a  class  by  them 
selves,  greatly  above  even  the  most  acute  and  painstaking 
of  the  Greek  and  Roman  compilers.  Herodotus,  Ctesias, 
Alexander  Polyhistor,  Diodorus  Siculus,  Trogus  Pompeius, 
could  at  best  receive  at  second  hand  such  representations 
of  Babylonian  and  Egyptian  history  as  the  natives  chose 
to  impart  to  them,  and  moreover  received  these  representa 
tions  (for  the  most  part)  diluted  and  distorted  by  passing 
through  the  medium  of  comparatively  ignorant  interpret 
ers.  Manetho  and  Berosus  had  free  access  to  the  national 
records,  and  so  could  draw  their  histories  directly  from  the 
fountain-head.  This  advantage  might,  of  course,  have  been 
forfeited  by  a  deficiency  on  their  part  of  either  honesty  or 
diligence ;  but  the  recent  discoveries  in  the  two  countries 
have  had  the  eifect  of  removing  all  doubt  upon  either  of 
these  two  heads  from  the  character  of  both  writers.  The 
monuments  which  have  been  recovered  furnish  the 
strongest  proof  alike  of  the  honest  intention  and  of  the 
diligence  and  carefulness  of  the  two  historians ;  who  have 
thus,  as  profane  writers  of  primeval  history,  a  preeminence 
over  all  others.  (54)  This  is  perhaps  the  chief  value  of  the 
documents  obtained,  which  do  not  in  themselves  furnish  a 
history,  or  even  its  framework,  a  chronology ;  (55)  but  re 
quire  an  historical  scheme  to  be  given  from  without,  into 
which  they  may  fit,  and  wherein  each  may  find  its  true 
and  proper  position. 

If  we  now  proceed  to  compare  the  Mosaic  account  of 
the  first  period  of  the  world's  history  with  that  outline 
which  may  be  obtained  from  Egyptian  and  Babylonian 
sources,  we  are  struck  at  first  sight  with  what  seems  an 


64  HISTORICAL   EVIDENCES    OF   THE  LECT.  II. 

enormous  difference  in  the  chronology.  The  sum  of  the 
years  in  Manetho's  scheme,  as  it  has  come  down  to  us  in 
Eusebius,  is  little  short  of  thirty  thousand ;  (56)  while  that  in 
the  scheme  of  Berosus,  as  reported  by  the  same  author/57) 
exceeds  four  hundred  and  sixty  thousand !  But  upon  a 
little  consideration,  the  greater  part  of  this  difficulty  van 
ishes.  If  we  examine  the  two  chronologies,  we  shall  find 
that  both  evidently  divide  at  a  certain  point,  above  which 
all  is  certainly  mythic,  while  below  all  is,  or  at  least  may 
be,  historical.  Out  of  the  thirty  thousand  years  contained 
(apparently)  in  Manetho's  scheme,  nearly  twenty-five  thou 
sand  belong  to  the  time  when  Gods,  Demigods,  and  Spirits 
had  rule  on  earth ;  and  the  history  of  Egypt  confessedly 
does  not  begin  till  this  period  is  concluded,  and  Menes,  the 
first  Egyptian  king,  mounts  the  throne.  (58)  Similarly,  in 
the  chronology  of  Berosus,  there  is  a  sudden  transition 
from  kings  whose  reigns  are  counted  by  sossi  and  neri,  or 
periods  respectively  of  sixty  and  six  hundred  years,  to 
monarchs  the  average  length  of  whose  reigns  very  little 
exceeds  that  found  to  prevail  in  ordinary  monarchies. 
Omitting  in  each  case  what  is  plainly  a  mythic  computa 
tion,  we  have  in  the  Babylonian  scheme  a  chronology 
which  mounts  up  no  higher  than  two  thousand  four  hun 
dred  and  fifty-eight  years  before  Christ,  or  eight  hundred 
years  after  the  Deluge,  (according  to  the  numbers  of  the 
Septuagint ;)  while  in  the  Egyptian  we  have  at  any  rate 
only  an  excess  of  about  two  thousand  years  to  explain  and 
account  for,  instead  of  an  excess  of  twenty-seven  thousand. 
And  this  latter  discrepancy  becomes  insignificant,  if  it 
does  not  actually  disappear,  upon  a  closer  scrutiny.  The 
five  thousand  years  of  Manetho's  dynastic  lists  were  re 
duced  by  himself  (as  we  learn  from  Syncellus)  to  three 
thousand  five  hundred  and  fifty-five  years/59)  doubtless 


LECT.  IL        TRUTH   OP  THE  SCRIPTURE  RECORDS.  65 

because  he  was  aware  that  his  lists  contained  in  some  cases 
contemporary  dynasties;  in  others,  contemporary  kings  iu 
the  same  dynasty,  owing  to  the  mention  in  them  of  various 
royal  personages  associated  on  the  throne  by  the  principal 
monarch.  Thus  near  fifteen  hundred  years  are  struck  off 
from  Manetho's  total  at  a  blow ;  and  the  chronological 
difference  between  his  scheme  and  that  of  Scripture  is 
reduced  to  a  few  hundred  years  —  a  discrepancy  of  no 
great  moment,  and  one  which  might  easily  arise,  either 
from  slight  errors  of  the  copyists,  or  from  an  insufficient 
allowance  being  made  in  Manetho's  scheme,  in  respect  of 
either  or  both  of  the  causes  from  which  Egyptian  chronol 
ogy  is  always  liable  to  be  exaggerated.  Without  taxing 
Manetho  with  conscious  dishonesty,  we  may  suspect  that 
he  was  not  unwilling  to  exalt  the  antiquity  of  his  country, 
if  he  could  do  so  without  falsifying  his  authorities ;  and 
from  the  confusion  of  the  middle  or  Hyksos  period  of 
Egyptian  history,  and  the  obscurity  of  the  earlier  times, 
when  there  were  as  yet  no  monuments,  he  would  have  had 
abundant  opportunity  for  chronological  exaggeration  by 
merely  regarding  as  consecutive  dynasties  all  those,  which 
were  not  certainly  known  to  have  been  contemporary. 
The  real  duration  of  the  Egyptian  monarchy  depends  en 
tirely  upon  the  proper  arrangement  of  the  dynasties  into 
synchronous  and  consecutive  —  a  point  upon  which  the 
best  Egyptologers  are  still  far  from  agreed.  Some  of  the 
greatest  names  in  this  branch  of  antiquarian  learning  are  in 
favor  of  a  chronology  almost  as  moderate  as  the  historic 
Babylonian;  the  accession  of  Menes,  according  to  them, 
falling  about  2660  B.  C.,  or  more  than  six  hundred  years 
after  the  Septuagint  date  for  the  Deluge,  (^ 

The  removal  of  this  difficulty  opens  the  way  to  a  consid 
eration  of  the  positive  points  of  agreement  between  the 

6* 


66  HISTORICAL   EVIDENCES   OF   THE  LECT.  II. 

Scriptural  narrative  and  that  of  the  profane  authorities. 
And  here,  for  the  earliest  times,  it  is  especially  Babylon 
which  furnishes  an  account  capable  of  being  compared 
with  that  of  Moses.  According  to  Berosus,  the  world 
when  first  created  was  in  darkness,  and  consisted  of  a  fluid 
mass  inhabited  by  monsters  of  the  strangest  forms.  Over 
the  whole  dominated  a  female  power  called  Thalatth,  or 
Sea.  Then  Belus,  wishing  to  carry  on  the  creative  work, 
cleft  Thalatth  in  twain ;  and  of  the  half  of  her  he  made  the 
earth,  and  of  the  other  half  the  heaven.  Hereupon  the 
monsters,  who  could  not  endure  the  air  and  the  light,  per 
ished.  Belus  upon  this,  seeing  that  the  earth  was  desolate, 
yet  teeming  with  productive  power,  cut  off  his  own  head, 
and  mingling  the  blood  which  flowed  forth  with  the  dust 
of  the  ground,  formed  men,  who  were  thus  intelligent,  as 
being  partakers  of  the  divine  wisdom.  He  then  made 
other  animals  fit  to  live  on  the  earth :  lie  made  also  the 
stars,  and  the  sun  and  moon,  and  the  five  planets.  The 
first  man  was  Alorus,  a  Chaldaean,  who  reigned  over  man 
kind  for  thirty-six  thousand  years,  and  begat  a  son,  Alapa- 
rus,  who  reigned  ten  thousand  eight  hundred  years.  Then 
followed  in  succession  eight  others,  whose  reigns  were  of 
equal  or  greater  length,  ending  with  Xisuthrus,  under 
whom  the  great  Deluge  took  place.  (&1)  The  leading  facts 
of  this  cosmogony  and  antediluvian  history  are  manifestly, 
and  indeed  confessedly,  (62)  in  close  agreement  with  the 
Hebrew  records.  We  have  in  it  the  earth  at  first  "without 
form  and  void,"  and  "darkness  upon  the  face  of  the  deep."1 
We  have  the  Creator  dividing  the  watery  mass  and  making 
the  two  firmaments,  that  of  the  heaven  and  that  of  the 
earth,  first  of  all ;  we  have  Light  spoken  of  before  the  sun 
and  moon ;  we  have  their  creation,  and  that  of  the  stars, 

1  Genesis  i.  2. 


LECT.  II.    TRUTH  OP  THE  SCRIPTURE  RECORDS.        67 

somewhat  late  in  the  series  of  events  given;  we  have  a 
divine  element  infused  into  man  at  his  birth,  and  again  we 
have  his  creation  "from  the  dust  of  the  ground."1  Fur 
ther,  between  the  first  man  and  the  Deluge  are  in  the 
scheme  of  Berosus  ten  generations,  which  is  the  exact 
number  between  Adam  and  Noah ;  and  though  the  dura 
tion  of  human  life  is  in  his  account  enormously  exagger 
ated,  we  may  see  even  in  this  exaggeration  a  glimpse  of 
the  truth,  that  the  lives  of  the  Patriarchs  were  extended 
far  beyond  the  term  which  has  been  the  limit  in  later  ages. 
This  truth  seems  to  have  been  known  to  many  of  the 
ancients,  (63)  and  traces  of  it  have  even  been  found  among 
the  modern  Burmans  and  Chinese.  (64) 

The  account  which  Berosus  gives  of  the  Deluge  is  still 
more  strikingly  in  accordance  with  the  narrative  of  Scrip 
ture.  "  Xisuthrus,"  he  says,  "  was  warned  by  Saturn  in  a 
dream  that  all  mankind  would  be  destroyed  shortly  by  a 
deluge  of  rain.  He  was  bidden  to  bury  in  the  city  of  Sip- 
para  (or  Sepharvaim)  such  written  documents  as  existed ; 
and  then  to  build  a  huge  vessel  or  ark,  in  length  five  fur 
longs,  and  two  furlongs  in  width,  wherein  was  to  be  placed 
good  store  of  provisions,  together  with  winged  fowl  and 
four-footed  beasts  of  the  earth ;  and  in  which  he  was  him 
self  to  embark  w^ith  his  wife  and  children,  and  his  close 
friends.  Xisuthrus  did  accordingly,  and  the  flood  came  at 
the  time  appointed.  The  ark  drifted  towards  Armenia; 
and  Xisuthrus,  on  the  third  day  after  the  rain  abated,  sent 
out  from  the  ark  a  bird,  which,  after  flying  for  a  while  over 
the  illimitable  sea  of  waters,  and  finding  neither  food  nor  a 
spot  on  which  it  could  settle,  returned  to  him.  Some  days 
later,  Xisuthrus  sent  out  other  birds,  which  likewise  re 
turned,  but  with  feet  covered  with  mud.  Sent  out  a  third 

1  Genesis  ii.  7. 


68  HISTORICAL  EVIDENCES  OP  THE  LECT.  II. 

time,  the  birds  returned  no  more;  and  Xisuthrus  knew 
that  the  earth  had  reappeared.  So  he  removed  some  of 
the  covering  of  the  ark,  and  looked,  and  behold  the  vessel 
had  grounded  upon  a  high  mountain,  and  remained  fixed. 
Then  he  went  forth  from  the  ark,  with  his  wife,  his  daugh 
ter,  and  his  pilot,  and  built  an  altar,  and  offered  sacrifice ; 
after  which  he  suddenly  disappeared  from  sight,  together 
with  those  who  had  accompanied  him.  They  who  had 
remained  in  the  ark,  surprised  that  he  did  not  return, 
sought  him ;  when  they  heard  his  voice  in  the  sky,  exhort 
ing  them  to  continue  religious,  and  bidding  them  go  back 
to  Babylonia  from  the  land  of  Armenia,  where  they  were, 
and  recover  the  buried  documents,  and  make  them  once 
more  known  among  men.  So  they  obeyed,  and  went  back 
to  the  land  of  Babylon,  and  built  many  cities  and  temples, 
and  raised  up  Babylon  from  its  ruins."  C65) 

Such  is  the  account  of  Berosus ;  and  a  description  sub 
stantially  the  same  is  given  by  Abydenus,  (66)  an  ancient 
writer  of  whom  less  is  known,  but  whose  fragments  are 
generally  of  great  value  and  importance.  It  is  plain  that 
we  have  here  a  tradition  not  drawn  from  the  Hebrew  rec 
ord,  much  less  the  foundation  of  that  record ;  C67)  yet  coin 
ciding  with  it  in  the  most  remarkable  way.  The  Baby 
lonian  version  is  tricked  out  with  a  few  extravagances,  as 
the  monstrous  size  of  the  vessel,  and  the  translation  of 
Xisuthrus ;  but  otherwise  it  is  the  Hebrew  history  down  to 
its  minutice.  The  previous  warning,  the  divine  direction 
as  to  the  ark  and  its  dimensions,  the  introduction  into  it  of 
birds  and  beasts,  the  threefold  sending  out  of  the  bird,  the 
place  of  the  ark's  resting,  the  egress  by  removal  of  the  cov 
ering,  the  altar  straightway  built,  and  the  sacrifice  offered, 
constitute  an  array  of  exact  coincidences  which  cannot 
possibly  be  the  result  of  chance,  and  of  which  I  see  no 


LECT.  II.        TRUTH   OF  THE  SCRIPTURE  RECORDS.  69 

plausible  account  that  can  be  given  except  that  it  is  the 
harmony  of  truth.  Nor  are  these  minute  coincidences 
counterbalanced  by  the  important  differences  which  some 
have  seen  in  the  two  accounts.  It  is  not  true  to  say  (as 
Niebuhr  is  reported  to  have  said)  that  "the  Babylonian 
tradition  differs  from  the  Mosaic  account  by  stating  that 
not  only  Xisuthrus  and  his  family,  but  all  pious  men,  were 
saved ;  and  also  by  making  the  Flood  not  universal,  but 
only  partial,  and  confined  to  Babylonia" (66)  Berosus  does 
indeed  give  Xisuthrus,  as  companions  in  the  ark,  not  only 
his  wife  and  children,  but  a  certain  number  of  "close 
friends;"  and  thus  far  he  differs  from  Scripture;  but  these 
friends  are  not  represented  as  numerous,  much  less  as  "  all 
pious  men."  And  so  far  is  he  from  making  the  Flood  par 
tial,  or  confining  it  to  Babylonia,  that  his  narrative  dis 
tinctly  implies  the  contrary.  The  warning  given  to  Xisu 
thrus  is  that  "mankind"  (TOVJ  d^Gwoug)  is  about  to  be 
destroyed.  The  ark  drifts  to  Armenia,  and  when  it  is 
there,  the  birds  are  sent  out,  and  find  "  an  illimitable  sea 
of  waters,"  and  no  rest  for  the  sole  of  their  feet.  When 
at  length  they  no  longer  return,  Xisuthrus  knows  "that 
land  has  reappeared,"  and  leaving  the  ark,  finds  himself 
"  on  a  mountain  in  Armenia."  It  is  plain  that  the  waters 
are  represented  as  prevailing  above  the  tops  of  the  loftiest 
mountains  in  Armenia,  —  a  height  which  must  have  been 
seen  to  involve  the  submersion  of  all  the  countries  with 
which  the  Babylonians  were  acquainted. 

The  account  which  the  Chaldean  writer  gave  of  the 
events  following  the  Deluge  is  reported  with  some  disa 
greement  by  the  different  authors  through  whom  it  has 
come  down  to  us.  Josephus  believed  that  Berosus  was  in 
accord  with  Scripture  in  regard  to  the  generations  between 
the  Flood  and  Abraham,  which  (according  to  the  Jewish 


70  HISTORICAL  EVIDENCES  OP  THE  LECT.  II. 

historian)  he   correctly  estimated  at  ten.C67)     But  other 
writers  introduce  in  this  place,  as  coming  from  Berosus,  a 
series  of  eighty-six  kings,  the  first  and  second  of  whom 
reign  for  above  two  thousand  years,  while  the  remainder 
reign  upon  an  average  three  hundred  and  forty-five  years 
each.     We  have  here  perhaps  a  trace  of  that  gradual  short 
ening  of  human  life   which   the   genealogy   of  Abraham 
exhibits  to  us  so  clearly  in  Scripture;  but  the  numbers 
appear  to  be  artificial,  t68)  and  they  are  unaccompanied  by 
any  history.     There  is  reason,  however,  to  believe   that 
Berosus  noticed  one  of  the  most  important  events  of  this 
period,  in  terms  which  very  strikingly  recall  the  Scripture 
narrative.   Writers,  whose  Babylonian  history  seems  drawn 
directly  from  him,  or  from  the  sources  which  he  used,  give 
the  following  account  of  the  tower  of  Babel,  and  the  con 
fusion  of  tongues  —  "At  this  time  the  ancient  race  of  men 
were  so  puffed  up  with  their  strength  and  tallness  of  stat 
ure,  that  they  began  to  despise  and  contemn  the  gods ;  and 
labored  to  erect  that  very  lofty  tower,  which  is  now  called 
Babylon,  intending  thereby  to  scale  heaven.     But  when 
the  building  approached  the  sky,  behold,  the  gods  called  in 
the  aid  of  the  winds,  and  by  their  help  overturned  the 
tower,  and  cast  it  to  the  ground.     The  name  of  the  ruins 
is  still  called  Babel;  because  until  this  time  all  men  had 
used  the  same  speech,  but  now  there  was  sent  upon  them 
a  confusion  of  many  and  diverse  tongues."  (69) 

At  the  point  which  we  have  now  reached,  the  sacred 
narrative  ceases  to  be  general,  and  becomes  special  or  par 
ticular.  It  leaves  the  history  of  the  world,  and  concen 
trates  itself  on  an  individual  and  his  descendants.  At  the 
moment  of  transition,  however,  it  throws  out,  in  a  chapter 
of  wonderful  grasp  and  still  more  wonderful  accuracy,  a 
sketch  of  the  nations  of  the  earth,  their  ethnic  affinities, 


LECT.  II.        TRUTH   OF   THE   SCRIPTURE  RECORDS.  71 

and  to  some  extent  their  geographical  position  and  bounda 
ries.  The  Toldoth  Beni  Noah  has  extorted  the  admiration 
of  modern  ethnologists,  who  continually  find  in  it  anticipa 
tions  of  their  greatest  discoveries.  For  instance,  in  the 
very  second  verse  the  great  discovery  of  Schlegel,  (7°)  which 
the  word  Indo-European  embodies  —  the  affinity  of  the 
principal  nations  of  Europe  with  the  Arian  or  Indo-Persic 
stock  —  is  sufficiently  indicated  by  the  conjunction  of  the 
Madai  or  Medes  (whose  native  name  was  Mada)  with 
Gomer  or  the  Cymry,  and  Javan  or  the  lonians.  Again, 
one  of  the  most  recent  and  unexpected  results  of  modern 
linguistic  inquiry  is  the  proof  which  it  has  furnished  of  an 
ethnic  connection  between  the  Ethiopians  or  Cushites,  who 
adjoined  on  Egypt,  and  the  primitive  inhabitants  of  Baby 
lonia  ;  a  connection  which  (as  we  saw  in  the  last  Lecture) 
was  positively  denied  by  an  eminent  ethnologist  only  a  few 
years  ago,  but  which  has  now  been  sufficiently  established 
from  the  cuneiform  monuments.  (71)  In  the  tenth  of  Gene 
sis  we  find  this  truth  thus  briefly  but  clearly  stated  —  "And 
Cush  begat  Nimrod,"  the  "beginning  of  whose  kingdom 
was  Babel."  *  So  we  have  had  it  recently  made  evident 
from  the  same  monuments,  that  "out  of  that  land  went 
forth  Asshur,  and  builded  Nineveh"2 — or  that  the  Semitic 
Assyrians  proceeded  from  Babylonia  and  founded  Nineveh 
long  after  the  Cushite  foundation  of  Babylon.  (72>  Again, 
the  Hamitic  descent  of  the  early  inhabitants  of  Canaan, 
which  had  often  been  called  in  question,  has  recently  come 
to  be  looked  upon  as  almost  certain,  apart  from  the  evi 
dence  of  Scripture ;  (73)  and  the  double  mention  of  Sheba, 
both  among  the  sons  of  Ham,  and  also  among  those  of 
Shem,3  has  been  illustrated  by  the  discovery  that  there  are 

1  Gen.  x.  8  and  10.  2  Ibid,  verse  11. 

3  Ibid,  verses  7  and  28. 


72  HISTORICAL   EVIDENCES    OF   THE  LECT.   II. 

IAVO  races  of  Arabs  —  one  (the  Joktanian)  Semitic,  the 
other  (the  Himyaric)  Cushite  or  Et-hiopic.  (74>  On  the 
whole,  the  scheme  of  ethnic  affiliation  given  in  the  tenth 
chapter  of  Genesis  is  pronounced  "safer"  to  follow  than 
any  other ;  and  the  Toldoth  Beni  Noah  commends  itself  to 
the  ethnic  inquirer  as  "  the  most  authentic  record  that  we 
possess  for  the  affiliation  of  nations,"  and  as  a  document 
"  of  the  very  highest  antiquity."  (75) 

The  confirmation  which  profane  history  lends  the  Book 
of  Genesis  from  the  point  where  the  narrative  passes  from, 
the  general  to  the  special  character,  is  (as  might  be 
expected)  only  occasional,  and  for  the  most  part  incidental. 
Abraham  was  scarcely  a  personage  of  sufficient  importance 
to  attract  much  of  the  attention  of  either  the  Babylonian  or 
the  Egyptian  chroniclers.  We  possess,  indeed,  several  very 
interesting  notices  of  this  Patriarch  and  his  successors  from 
heathen  pens ;  (76)  but  they  are  of  far  inferior  moment  to 
the  authorities  hitherto  cited,  since  they  do  not  indicate  a 
separate  and  distinct  line  of  information,  but  are,  in  all 
probability,  derived  from  the  Hebrew  records.  I  refer  par 
ticularly  to  the  passages  which  Eusebius  produces  in  his 
Gospel  Preparation  from  Eupolemus,  Artapanus,  Molo, 
Philo,  and  Cleodemus  or  Malchas,  with  regard  to  Abra 
ham,  and  from  Demetrius,  Theodotus,  Artapanus,  and 
Philo,  with  respect  to  Isaac  and  Jacob.  These  testimonies 
are  probably  well  known  to  many  of  my  hearers,  since 
they  have  been  adduced  very  generally  by  our  writers.  (7~) 
They  bear  unmistakably  the  stamp  of  a  Jewish  origin ;  and 
show  the  view  which  the  more  enlightened  heathen  took  of 
the  historical  character  of  the  Hebrew  records,  when  they 
first  became  acquainted  with  them ;  but  they  cannot  boast, 
like  notices  in  Berosus  and  Manetho,  a  distinct  origin,  and 
thus  a  separate  and  independent  authority.  I  shall  there- 


LECT.  II.        TRUTH   OF  THE  SCRIPTURE  RECORDS.  73 

fore  content  myself  with  this  brief  mention  of  them  here, 
which  is  all  that  time  will  allow ;  and  proceed  to  adduce  a 
few  direct  testimonies  to  the  later  narrative,  furnished 
either  by  the  native  writers,  or  by  the  results  of  modern 
researches. 

There  are  three  points  only  in  this  portion  of  the  narra 
tive  which,  being  of  the  nature  of  public  and  important 
events,  might  be  expected  to  obtain  notice  in  the  Babylo 
nian  or  Egyptian  records — the  expedition  of  Chedor-laomer 
with  his  confederate  kings,  the  great  famine  in  the  days  of 
Joseph,  and  the  Exodus  of  the  Jews.  Did  we  possess  the 
complete  monumental  annals  of  the  two  countries,  or  the 
works  themselves  of  Berosus  and  Manetho,  it  might  fairly  be 
demanded  of  us  that  we  should  adduce  evidence  from  them 
of  all  the  three.  With  the  scanty  and  fragmentary  remains 
which  are  what  we  actually  possess,  it  would  not  be  sur 
prising  if  we  found  ourselves  without  a  trace  of  any.  In 
fact,  however,  we  are  able  to  produce  from  our  scanty  stock 
a  decisive  confirmation  of  two  events  out  of  the  three. 

The  monumental  records  of  Babylonia  bear  marks  of  an 
interruption  in  the  line  of  native  kings,  about  the  date 
which  from  Scripture  we  should  assign  to  Chedor-laomer, 
and  "point  to  Elymais  (or  Elam)  as  the  country  from 
which  the  interruption  came."  (78)  We  have  mention  of  a 
king,  whose  name  is  on  good  grounds  identified  with 
Chedor-laomer,  (79>  as  paramount  in  Babylonia  at  this  time 
—  a  king  apparently  of  Elamitic  origin  —  and  this  monarch 
bears  in  the  inscriptions  the  unusual  and  significant  title  of 
Apda  Martu,  or  "  Ravager  of  the  West."  Our  fragments 
of  Berosus  give  us  no  names  at  this  period ;  but  his  dynas 
ties  exhibit  a  transition  at  about  the  date  required/80) 
which  is  in  accordance  with  the  break  indicated  by  the 
monuments.  We  thus  obtain  a  double  witness  to  the 


74  HISTORICAL  EVIDENCES  OP  THE  LECT.  II. 

remarkable  fact  of  an  interruption  of  pure  Babylonian 
supremacy  at  this  time ;  and  from  the  monuments  we  are 
able  to  pronounce  that  the  supremacy  was  transferred  to 
Elam,  and  that  under  a  king,  the  Semitic  form  of  whose 
name  would  be  Chedor-laomer,  a  great  expedition  was 
organized,  which  proceeded  to  the  distant  and  then  almost 
unknown  west,  and  returned  after  "ravaging"  but  not 
conquering  those  regions. 

The  Exodus  of  the  Jews  was  an  event  which  could 
scarcely  be  omitted  by  Manetho.  It  was  one  however  of 
such  a  nature  —  so  entirely  repugnant  to  all  the  feelings  of 
an  Egyptian  —  that  we  could  not  expect  a  fair  representa 
tion  of  it  in  their  annals.  And  accordingly,  our  fragments 
of  Manetho  present  us  with  a  distinct  but  very  distorted 
notice  of  the  occurrence.  The  Hebrews  are  represented  as 
leprous  and  impious  Egyptians,  who  under  the  conduct  of 
a  priest  of  Heliopolis,  named  Moses,  rebelled  on  account  of 
oppression,  occupied  a  town  called  Avaris,  or  Abaris,  and 
having  called  in  the  aid  of  the  people  of  Jerusalem,  made 
themselves  masters  of  Egypt,  which  they  held  for  thirteen 
years ;  but  who  were  at  last  defeated  by  the  Egyptian  king, 
and  driven  from  Egypt  into  Syria.  (81)  We  have  here  the 
oppression,  the  name  Moses,  the  national  name,  Hebrew, 
under  the  disguise  of  Abaris,  and  the  true  direction  of  the 
retreat ;  but  we  have  all  the  special  circumstances  of  the 
occasion  concealed  under  a  general  confession  of  disaster ; 
and  we  have  a  claim  to  final  triumph  which  consoled  the 
wounded  vanity  of  the  nation,  but  which  we  know  to 
have  been  unfounded.  On  the  whole  we  have  perhaps  as 
much  as  we  could  reasonably  expect  the  annals  of  the  Egyp 
tians  to  tell  us  of  transactions  so  little  to  their  credit ;  and 
we  have  a  narrative  fairly  confirming  the  principal  facts, 
as  well  as  very  curious  in  many  of  its  particulars,  t82) 


LECT.  II.       TRUTH   OF  THE   SCRIPTURE  RECORDS.  75 

I  have  thus  briefly  considered  some  of  the  principal  of 
those  direct  testimonies  which  can  be  adduced  from  ancient 
profane  sources,  in  confirmation  of  the  historic  truth  of  the 
Pentateuch.  There  are  various  other  arguments  —  some 
purely,  some  partly  historic  —  into  which  want  of  space  for 
bids  my  entering  in  the  present  Course.  For  instance,  there 
is  what  may  be  called  the  historico-scientific  argument, 
derivable  from  the  agreement  of  the  sacred  narrative  with 
the  conclusions  reached  by  those  sciences  which  have  a 
partially  historical  character.  Geology  —  whatever  may  be 
thought  of  its  true  bearing  upon  other  points  —  at  least 
witnesses  to  the  recent  creation  of  man,  of  whom  there  is 
no  trace  in  any  but  the  latest  strata.  C83)  Physiology 
decides  in  favor  of  the  unity  of  the  species,  and  the  proba 
ble  derivation  of  the  whole  human  race  from  a  single 
pair.  (84)  Comparative  Philology,  after  divers  fluctuations, 
settles  into  the  belief  that  languages  will  ultimately  prove 
to  have  been  all  derived  from  a  common  basis.  (85>  Ethnol 
ogy  pronounces  that,  independently  of  the  Scriptural 
record,  we  should  be  led  to  fix  on  the  plains  of  Shinar  as  a 
common  centre,  or  focus,  from  which  the  various  lines  of 
migration  and  the  several  types  of  races  originally  radi 
ated.  (86)  Again,  there  is  an  argument  perhaps  more  con 
vincing  than  any  other,  but  of  immense  compass,  deducible 
from  the  indirect  and  incidental  points  of  agreement 
between  the  Mosaic  records  and  the  best  profane  authori 
ties.  The  limits  within  which  I  am  confined  compel  me  to 
decline  this  portion  of  the  inquiry.  Otherwise  it  might  be 
shown  that  the  linguistic,  geographic,  and  ethologic  notices 
contained  in  the  books  of  Moses  are  of  the  most  veracious 
character,  (8~)  stamping  the  whole  narration  with  an  unmis 
takable  air  of  authenticity.  And  this,  it  may  be  remarked, 
is  an  argument  to  which  modern  research  is  perpetually 


76  HISTORICAL  EVIDENCES  OF  THE  L.ECT.  II. 

adding  fresh  weight.  For  instance,  if  we  look  to  the 
geography,  we  shall  find  that  till  within  these  few  years, 
"Erech,  and  Accad,  and  Calneh,  in  the  land  of  Shinar"1  — 
Calah  and  Resen,  in  the  country  peopled  by  Asshur2  — 
Ellasar,  and  "Ur  of  the  Chaldees," 3  were  mere  names; 
and  beyond  the  mention  of  them  in  Genesis,  scarcely  a 
trace  was  discoverable  of  their  existence.  (88>  Recently, 
however,  the  mounds  of  Mesopotamia  have  been  searched, 
and  bricks  and  stones  buried  for  near  three  thousand  years 
have  found  a  tongue,  and  tell  us  exactly  where  each  of 
these  cities  stood,  (89)  and  sufficiently  indicate  their  impor 
tance.  Again,  the  power  of  Og,  and  his  "  threescore  cities 
all  fenced  with  high  walls,  gates,  and  bars,  besides  unwalled 
towns  a  great  many,"4  in  such  a  country  as  that  to  the  east 
of  the  Sea  of  Galilee,  whose  old  name  of  Trachonitis  indi 
cates  its  barrenness,  seemed  to  many  improbable  —  but 
modern  research  has  found  in  this  very  country  a  vast 
number  of  walled  cities  still  standing,  which  show  the 
habits  of  the  ancient  people,  and  prove  that  the  population 
must  at  one  time  have  been  considerable.  (9°)  So  the  care 
ful  examination  that  has  been  made  of  the  valley  of  the 
Jordan,  which  has  resulted  in  a  proof  that  it  is  a  unique 
phenomenon,  utterly  unlike  any  thing  elsewhere  on  the 
whole  face  of  the  earth,  (91>  tends  greatly  to  confirm  the 
Mosaic  account,  that  it  became  what  it  now  is  by  a  great 
convulsion ;  and  by  pious  persons  will,  I  think,  be  felt  as 
confirming  the  miraculous  character  of  that  convulsion. 
Above  all,  perhaps,' the  absence  of  any  counter-evidence  — 
the  fact  that  each  accession  to  our  knowledge  of  the 
ancient  times,  whether  historic  or  geographic,  or  ethnic, 
helps  to  remove  difficulties,  and  to  produce  a  perpetual 

1  Gen.  x.  10.  2  Ibid,  verses  11  and  12. 

3  Ibid.  xi.  31  ;  xiv.  1.  4  Deut.  iii.  o. 


LECT.  II.        TRUTH   OP   THE   SCRIPTURE   RECORDS.  77 

supply  of  fresh  illustrations  of  the  Mosaic  narrative ;  while 
fresh  difficulties  are  not  at  the  same  time  brought  to  light 
—  is  to  be  remarked,  as  to  candid  minds  an  argument  for 
the  historic  truth  of  the  narrative,  the  force  of  which  can 
scarcely  be  over-estimated.  All  tends  to  show  that  we 
possess  in  the  Pentateuch,  not  only  the  most  authentic 
account  of  ancient  times  that  has  come  down  to  us,  but  a 
history  absolutely  and  in  every  respect  true.  All  tends  to 
assure  us  that  in  this  marvellous  volume  we  have  no  old 
wives'  tales,  no  "cunningly  devised  fable;"1  but  a  "  treas 
ure  of  wisdom  and  knowledge"2  —  as  important  to  the  his 
torical  inquirer  as  to  the  theologian.  There  may  be 
obscurities  —  there  may  be  occasionally,  in  names  and 
numbers,  accidental  corruptions  of  the  text  —  there  may 
be  a  few  interpolations  —  glosses  which  have  crept  in  from 
the  margin;  but  upon  the  whole  it  must  be  pronounced 
that  we  have  in  the  Pentateuch  a  genuine  and  authentic 
work,  and  one  which  —  even  were  it  not  inspired  —  would 
be,  for  the  times  and  countries  whereof  it  treats,  the  lead 
ing  and  paramount  authority.  It  is  (let  us  be  assured) 
" MOSES,"  who  is  still  "read  in  the  synagogues  every 
sabbath  day ; " 3  and  they  who  "  resist "  him,  by  impugning 
his  veracity,  like  Jannes  and  Jambres  of  old,  "  resist  the 
truth?  4 

1  2  Pet.  i.  16.  *  Col.  ii.  3. 

3  Acts  xv.  21.  4  2  Tim.  iii.  8. 


LECTURE    III. 

WHEN  HE  HAD  DESTROYED  SEVEN  NATIONS  IN  THE  LAND  OF  CHANAAN, 
HE  DIVIDED  THEIR  LAND  TO  THEM  BY  LOT.  AND  AFTER  THAT  HE 
GAVE  THEM  JUDGES  ABOUT  THE  SPACE  OF  FOUR  HUNDRED  AND  FIFTY 
YEARS,  UNTIL  SAMUEL  THE  PROPHET.  AND  AFTERWARD  THEY  DE 
SIRED  A  KING.  —  ACTS  XIII.  19-21. 

THE  period  of  Jewish  history,  which  has  to  be  considered 
in  the  present  Lecture,  contains  within  it  the  extremes  of 
obscurity  and  splendor,  of  the  depression  and  the  exalta 
tion  of  the  race.  The  fugitives  from  Egypt,  who  by  divine 
aid  effected  a  lodgment  in  the  land  of  Canaan,  under  their 
great  leader,  Joshua,  were  engaged  for  some  hundreds  of 
years  in  a  perpetual  struggle  for  existence  with  the  petty 
tribes  among  whom  they  had  intruded  themselves,  and 
seemed  finally  on  the  point  of  succumbing  and  ceasing 
altogether  to  be  a  people,  when  they  were  suddenly  lifted 
up  by  the  hand  of  God,  and  carried  rapidly  to  the  highest 
pitch  of  greatness  whereto  they  ever  attained.  From  the 
time  when  the  Hebrews  "hid  themselves  in  holes,"1  for 
fear  of  the  Philistines,  and  were  without  spears,  or  swords, 
or  armorers,  because  the  Philistines  had  said,  "  Lest  the 
Hebrews  make  themselves  swords  or  spears," 2  to  the  full 
completion  of  the  kingdom  of  David  by  his  victories  over 
the  Philistines,  the  Moabites,  the  Syrians,  the  Ammonites, 
and  the  Amalekites,  together  with  the  submission  of  the 
Idumseans,3  was  a  space  little,  if  at  all,  exceeding  half  a 

1  1  Sam.  xiv.  11.  *  Ibid.  xiii.  19-22.  3  2  Sam.  viii. 

(78) 


LECT.  III.       TRUTH   OF   THE   SCRIPTURE   RECORDS.  79 

century.  Thus  were  brought  within  the  lifetime  of  a  man 
the  highest  glory  and  the  deepest  shame,  oppression  and 
dominion,  terror  and  triumph,  the  peril  of  extinction  and 
the  establishment  of  a  mighty  empire.  The  very  men  who 
"  hid  themselves  in  caves  and  in  thickets,  in  rocks,  and  in 
high  places,  and  in  pits," 1  or  who  fled  across  the  Jordan  to 
the  land  of  Gad  and  Gilead,2  when  the  Philistines  "  pitched 
in  Michmash,"  may  have  seen  garrisons  put  in  Damascus 
and  "  throughout  all  Edom," 3  and  the  dominion  of  David 
extended  to  the  Euphrates.4 

The  history  of  this  remarkable  period  is  delivered  to  us 
in  four  or  five  Books,  the  authors  of  which  are  unknown, 
or  at  best  uncertain.  It  is  thought  by  some  that  Joshua 
wrote  the  book  which  bears  his  name,  except  the  closing 
verses  of  the  last  chapter ;  (J)  and  by  others,  (2)  that  Samuel 
composed  twenty-four  chapters  of  the  first  of  those  two 
books  which  in  our  Canon  bear  the  title  of  Books  of 
Samuel ;  but  there  is  no  such  uniform  tradition  (3>  in  either 
case  as  exists  respecting  the  authorship  of  the  Pentateuch, 
nor  is  there  the  same  weight  of  internal  testimony.  On 
the  whole,  the  internal  testimony  seems  to  be  against  the 
ascription  of  the  Book  of  Joshua  to  the  Jewish  leader  ;  (4) 
and  both  it,  Judges,  and  Ruth,  as  well  as  Kings  and  Chroni 
cles,  are  best  referred  to  the  class  of  8i{ttla  adlarror(^  or 
books  the  authors  of  which  are  unknown  to  us.  The  im 
portance  of  a  history,  however,  though  it  may  be  enhanced 
by  our  knowledge  of  the  author,  does  not  necessarily  de 
pend  on  such  knowledge.  The  Turin  Papyrus,  the  Parian 
Marble,  the  Saxon  Chronicle,  are  documents  of  the  very 
highest  historic  value,  though  we  know  nothing  of  the 
persons  who  composed  them ;  because  there  is  reason  to, 

1  1  Sam.  xiii.  6.  2  Ibid,  verse  7. 

8  2  Sam.  viii.  14.  4  Ibid,  verse  3. 


80  HISTORICAL   EVIDENCES   OF   THE  LECT.  III. 

believe  that  they  were  composed  from  good  sources.  And 
so  it  is  with  these  portions  of  the  Sacred  Volume.  There 
is  abundant  evidence,  both  internal  and  external,  of  their 
authenticity  and'  historic  value,  notwithstanding  that  their 
actual  composers  are  unknown  or  uncertain.  They  have 
really  the  force  of  State  Papers,  being  authoritative  public 
documents,  preserved  among  the  national  archives  of  the 
Jews  so  long  as  they  were  a  nation  ;  and  ever  since  cher 
ished  by  the  scattered  fragments  of  the  race  as  among  the 
most  precious  of  their  early  records.  As  we  do  not  com 
monly  ask  who  was  the  author  of  a  State  Paper,  but  ac 
cept  it  without  any  such  formality,  so  we  are  bound  to  act 
towards  these  writings.  They  are  written  near  the  time, 
sometimes  by  eye-witnesses,  sometimes  by  those  who  have 
before  them  the  reports  of  eye-witnesses ;  and  their  recep 
tion  among  the  sacred  records  of  the  Jews  stamps  them 
with  an  authentic  character. 

As  similar  attempts  have  been  made  to  invalidate  the 
authority  of  these  books  with  those  to  which  I  alluded  in 
the  last  Lecture,  as  directed  against  the  Pentateuch,  it  will 
be  necessary  to  state  briefly  the  special  grounds,  which 
exist  in  the  case  of  each,  for  accepting  it  as  containing  a 
true  history.  Having  thus  vindicated  the  historical  char 
acter  of  the  Books  from  the  evidence  which  they  them 
selves  offer,  I  shall  then  proceed  to  adduce  such  confir 
mation  of  their  truth  as  can  be  obtained  from  other,  and 
especially  from  profane,  sources. 

The  Book  of  Joshua  is  clearly  the  production  of  an  eye 
witness.  The  writer  includes  himself  among  those  who 
passed  over  Jordan  dryshod.1  He  speaks  of  Rahab  the 
harlot  as  still  "  dwelling  in  Israel "  when  he  writes ; 2  and 
of  Hebron  as  still  in  the  possession  of  Caleb  the  son  of 

1  Josh,  v.  1.  *  Ibid.  vi.  25, 


LECT.  IE.      TRUTH   OF  THE   SCRIPTURE  RECORDS.  81 

Jephunneh.1  He  belongs  clearly  to  the  "elders  that 
outlived  Joshua,  which  had  known  all  the  works  of  the 
Lord  that  he  had  done  for  Israel;"2  and  is  therefore  as 
credible  a  witness  for  the  events  of  the  settlement  in 
Palestine,  as  Moses  for  those  of  the  Exodus  and  the  pas 
sage  through  the  wilderness.  Further,  he  undoubtedly 
possesses  documents  of  authority,  from  one  of  which  (the 
Book  of  Jasher)  he  quotes ; 3  and  it  is  a  reasonable  supposi 
tion  that  his  work  is  to  a  great  extent  composed  from  such 
documents,  to  which  there  are  several  references,4  besides 
the  actual  quotation.  (5) 

The  Book  of  Judges,  according  to  the  tradition  of  the 
Jews,  was  written  by  Samuel.  (6>  There  is  nothing  in  the 
work  itself  that  very  distinctly  marks  the  date  of  its  com 
position.  From  its  contents  we  can  only  say  that  it  must 
have  been  composed  about  Samuel's  time;  that  is,  after 
the  death  of  Samson,  and  before  the  capture  of  Jerusalem 
by  David.  (7)  As  the  events  related  in  it  certainly  cover  a 
space  of  some  hundreds  of  years,  the  writer,  whoever  he 
be,  cannot  be  regarded  as  a  contemporary  witness  for  more 
than  a  small  portion  of  them.  He  stands  rather  in  the 
position  of  Moses  with  respect  to  the  greater  part  of 
Genesis,  being  the  recorder  of  his  country's  traditions  dur 
ing  a  space  generally  estimated  as  about  equal  to  that 
which  intervened  between  the  call  of  Abraham  and  the 
birth  of  Moses.  (8)  Had  these  traditions  been  handed  down 
entirely  by  oral  communication,  still,  being  chiefly  marked 
and  striking  events  in  the  national  life,  they  wTould  have 
possessed  a  fair  title  to  acceptance.  As  the  case  actually 
stands,  however,  there  is  every  reason  to  believe  that 
national  records,  which  (as  we  have  seen)  existed  in  the 

1  Josh.  xiv.  14.  2  Ibid.  xxiv.  31. 

3  Ibid.  x.  13.  4  Ibid,  xviii.  9 ;  xxiv.  26. 


82  HISTORICAL  EVIDENCES   OP  THE  LECT.  III. 

days  of  Moses  and  Joshua,  were  continued  by  their  suc 
cessors,  and  that  these  formed  the  materials  from  which  the 
Book  of  Judges  was  composed  by  its  author.  Of  such 
records  we  have  a  specimen  in  the  Song  of  Deborah  and 
Barak,  an  historical  poem  embodying  the  chief  facts  of 
Deborah's  judgeship.  It  is  reasonable  to  suppose  that 
there  may  have  been  many  such  compositions,  belonging  to 
the  actual  time  of  the  events,  of  which  the  historian  could 
make  use  ;  and  it  is  also  most  probable  that  chronicles  were 
kept  even  at  this  early  date,  like  those  to  which  the  writers 
of  the  later  historical  books  refer  so  constantly.1 

The  two  Books  of  Samuel  are  thought  by  some  to  form, 
together  with  the  two  Books  of  Kings,  a  single  work,  and 
are  referred  to  the  time  of  the  Babylonish  captivity ;  (9> 
but  this  view  is  contrary  both  to  the  internal  and  to  the 
external  evidence.  The  tradition  of  the  Jews  is,  that  the 
work  was  commenced  by  Samuel,  continued  by  Gad, 
David's  seer,  and  concluded  by  Nathan  the  prophet ;  (10) 
and  this  is  —  to  say  the  least  —  a  very  probable  supposi 
tion.  We  know  from  a  statement  in  the  First  Book  of 
Chronicles,  that  "the  acts  of  David  the  king,  first  and  last, 
were  written  in  the  book  of  Samuel  the  seer,  and  in  the 
book  of  Nathan  the  prophet,  and  in  the  book  of  Gad  the 
seer ; " 2  and  these  writings,  it  is  plain,  were  still  extant  in 
the  Chronicler's  time.  If  then  the  Books  of  Samuel  had 
been  a  compilation  made  during  the  Captivity,  or  earlier, 
it  would  have  been  founded  on  these  books,  which  could 
not  but  have  been  of  primary  authority ;  in  which  case  the 
compiler  could  scarcely  have  failed  to  quote  them,  either  by 
name,  as  the  Chronicler  does  in  the  place  which  has  been 

1  1  Kings  xi.  41  ;  xiv.  19  and  29 ;  xv.  7  ;  xvi.  5,  14,  20,  27,  &c. ; 
1  Chron.  xxvii.  24  ;  2  Chron.  xii.  15  ;  xiii.  22 ;  xx.  34,  &c. 

2  1  Chron.  xxix.  29. 


LECT.  III.       TRUTH   OF  THE  SCRIPTURE  RECORDS.  83 

cited,  or  under  the  title  of  "  the  Chronicles  of  David,"  as 
he  seems  to  do  in  another.1  But  there  is  no  quotation, 
direct  or  indirect,  no  trace  of  compilation,  no  indication  of 
a  writer  drawing  from  other  authors,  in  the  two  Books  of 
Samuel,  from  beginning  to  end.  In  this  respect  they  con 
trast  most  strongly  with  both  Chronicles  and  Kings,  where 
the  authors  at  every  turn  make  reference  to  the  sources 
from  which  they  derive  their  information.  These  books 
therefore  are  most  reasonably  to  be  regarded  as  a  primary 
and  original  work  —  the  work  used  and  quoted  by  the 
Chronicler  for  the  reign  of  David  —  and  a  specimen  of 
those  other  works  from  which  the  authors  of  Kings  and 
Chronicles  confessedly  compiled  their  histories.  We  have 
thus,  in  all  probability,  for  the  times  of  Samuel,  Saul,  and 
David,  the  direct  witness  of  Samuel  himself,  and  of  the  two 
prophets  who  were  in  most  repute  during  the  reign  of 
David. 

The  writer  of  the  first  Book  of  Kings  derives  his  account 
of  Solomon  from  a  document  which  he  calls  "  the  Book  of 
the  Acts  of  Solomon ; " 2  while  the  author  of  the  second 
Book  of  Chronicles  cites  three  works  as  furnishing  him 
with  materials  for  this  part  of  his  history  —  "  the  book  of 
Nathan  the  prophet,  the  prophecy  of  Abijah  the  Shilonite, 
and  the  visions  of  Iddo  the  seer  against  Jeroboam  the  son 
of  Nebat." 3  These  last  were  certainly  the  works  of  con 
temporaries  ;(1J)  and  the  same  may  be  presumed  of  the 
other ;  since  the  later  compiler  is  not  likely  to  have  pos 
sessed  better  materials  than  the  earlier.  We  may  therefore 
conclude  that  we  have  in  Kings  and  Chronicles  the  history 
of  Solomon's  reign  —  not  perhaps  exactly  in  the  words  of 
contemporary  writers  —  but  substantially  as  they  delivered 
it.  And  the  writers  were  persons  who  held  the  same  high 

1  1  Chron.  xxvii.  24.         2  1  Kings  xi.  41.         3  2  Chron.  ix.  29. 


84  HISTORICAL  EVIDENCES   OF  THE  LECT.  IK. 

position  under  Solomon,  which  the  composers  of  the  Books 
of  Samuel  had  held  under  Saul  and  David. 

It  is  also  worthy  of  remark,  that  we  have  the  histories 
of  David  and  Solomon  from  two  separate  and  distinct 
authorities.  The  writer  of  Chronicles  does  not  draw  even 
his  account  of  David  wholly  from  Samuel,  but  adds  various 
particulars,  which  show  that  he  had  further  sources  of  in 
formation.  (12>  And  his  account  of  Solomon  appears  not 
to  have  been  drawn  from  Kings  at  all,  but  to  have  been 
taken  quite  independently  from  the  original  documents. 

Further,  it  is  to  be  noted  that  we  have  in  the  Book  of 
Psalms,  at  once  a  running  comment,  illustrative  of  David's 
personal  history,  the  close  agreement  of  which  with  the 
historical  books  is  striking,  and  also  a  work  affording 
abundant  evidence  that  the  history  of  the  nation,  as  it  is 
delivered  to  us  in  the  Pentateuch,  in  Joshua,  and  in 
Judges,  was  at  least  believed  by  the  Jews  to  be  their  true 
and  real  history  in  the  time  of  David.  The  seventy-eighth 
Psalm,  which  certainly  belongs  to  David's  time,  is  sufficient 
proof  of  this :  it  contains  a  sketch  of  Jewish  history,  from 
the  wonders  wrought  by  Moses  in  Egypt  to  the  establish 
ment  of  the  ark  in  mount  Zion  by  David,  and  refers  to  not 
fewer  than  fifty  or  sixty  of  the  occurrences  which  are  de 
scribed  at  length  in  the  historical  writings.  (13)  It  is  cer 
tain,  at  the  least,  that  the  Jews  of  David's  age  had  no 
other  account  to  give  of  their  past  fortunes  than  that- 
miraculous  story  which  has  come  down  to  us  in  the  Books 
of  Exodus,  Numbers,  Deuteronomy,  Joshua,  Judges,  and 
Samuel. 

We  have  now  further  to  consider  what  amount  of  con 
firmation  profane  history  lends  to  the  truth  of  the  sacred 
narrative  during  the  period  extending  from  the  death  of 
Moses  to  the  accession  of  Rehoboam.  This  period,  it  has 


LECT.  III.      TRUTH   OF  THE   SCRIPTURE  RECORDS.  85 

been  observed  above,  comprises  within  it  the  two  most 
opposite  conditions  of  the  Jewish  race :  during  its  earlier 
portion  the  Israelites  were  a  small  and  insignificant  people, 
with  difficulty  maintaining  themselves  in  the  hill-country  of 
Palestine  against  the  attacks  of  various  tribes,  none  of 
whom  have  made  any  great  figure  in  history:  while 
towards  its  close  a  Jewish  Empire  was  formed  —  an  Empire 
perhaps  as  great  as  any  which  up  to  that  time  had  been 
known  in  the  Eastern  world,  and  which,  if  not  so  extensive 
as  some  that  shortly  afterwards  grew  up  in  Western  Asia, 
at  any  rate  marks  very  distinctly  the  period  when  the 
power  and  prosperity  of  the  Jews  reached  its  acme. 

It  was  not  to  be  expected  that  profane  writers  would 
notice  equally  both  of  these  periods.  During  the  obscure 
time  of  the  Judges,  the  Jews  could  be  little  known  beyond 
their  borders;  and  even  had  Assyria  and  Egypt  been  at 
this  time  flourishing  and  aggressive  states,  had  the  armies 
of  either  or  both  been  then  in  the  habit  of  traversing 
Palestine  in  the  course  of  their  expeditions,  the  Israelites 
might  easily  have  escaped  mention,  since  they  occupied 
only  a  small  part  of  the  country,  and  that  part  the  least 
accessible  of  the  whole.  (14>  It  appears,  however,  that  in 
fact  both  Assyria  and  Egypt  were  weak  during  this  period. 
The  expeditions  of  the  former  were  still  confined  within 
the  Euphrates,  or,  if  they  crossed  it  on  rare  occasions,  at 
any  rate  went  no  farther  than  Cappadocia  and  Upper 
Syria,  or  the  country  about  Aleppo  and  Antioch.  (15)  And 
Egypt  from  the  time  of  Ramesses  the  third,  which  was  not 
long  after  the  Exodus,  to  that  of  Shishak,  the  contem 
porary  of  Solomon,  seems  to  have  sent  no  expeditions  at 
all  beyond  its  own  frontier.  (1C>  Thus  the  annals  of  the 
two  countries  are  necessarily  silent  concerning  the  Jews 
during  the  period  in  question ;  and  no  agreement  between 

8 


86  HISTORICAL  EVIDENCES  OP  THE  LECT.  III. 

them  and  the  Jewish  records  is  possible,  except  that  tacit 
one  which  is  found  in  fact  to  exist.  The  Jewish  records 
are  silent  concerning  Egypt,  from  the  Exodus  to  the  reign 
of  Solomon ;  which  is  exactly  the  time  during  which  the 
Egyptian  records  are  silent  concerning  the  Jews.  And 
Assyria  does  not  appear  in  Scripture  as  an  influential  power 
in  Lower  Syria  and  Palestine  till  a  time  considerably  later 
than  the  separation  of  the  kingdoms ;  while  similarly  the 
Assyrian  monuments  are  without  any  mention  of  expedi 
tions  into  these  parts  during  the  earlier  period  of  the  em 
pire.  Further,  it  may  be  remarked  that  from  the  mention 
of  Chushan-Rishathaim,  king  of  Aram-Naharaim,  (or  the 
country  about  Harran,)  as  a  powerful  prince  soon  after  the 
death  of  Joshua,  it  would  follow  that  Assyria  had  not  at 
that  time  extended  her  dominion  even  to  the  Euphrates ; 
a  conclusion  which  the  cuneiform  records  of  perhaps  two 
centuries  later  entirely  confirm,  (1?)  since  they  show  that 
even  then  the  Assyrians  had  not  conquered  the  whole 
country  east  of  the  river. 

Besides  the  points  of  agreement  here  noticed,  which, 
though  negative,  are  (I  think)  of  no  slight  weight,  we 
possess  one  testimony  belonging  to  this  period  of  a  direct 
and  positive  character,  which  is  among  the  most  curious  of 
the  illustrations,  that  profane  sources  furnish,  of  the  vera 
city  of  Scripture.  Moses  of  Chorene,  the  Armenian  his 
torian,  (18)  Procopius,  the  secretary  of  Belisarius,  (19>  and 
Suidas  the  Lexicographer,  t20)  relate,  that  there  existed  in 
their  day  at  Tingis,  (or  Tangiers,)  in  Africa,  an  ancient  in 
scription  to  the  effect  that  the  inhabitants  were  the  de 
scendants  of  those  fugitives  who  were  driven  from  the 
land  of  Canaan  by  Joshua  the  son  of  Nun,  the  plunderer. 
It  has  been  said  that  this  story  "  can  scarcely  be  any  thing 
but  a  Rabbinical  legend,  which  Procopius  may  have  heard 


LECT.  HI.      TRUTH   OF  THE  SCRIPTURE  RECORDS.  87 

from  African  Jews."  (21^  But  the  independent  testimony  of 
the  three  writers,  who  do  not  seem  to  have  copied  from 
one  another,  is  an  argument  of  great  weight ;  and  the 
expressions  used,  by  Procopius  especially,  have  a  precision 
and  a  circumstantiality,  which  seem  rather  to  imply  the 
basis  of  personal  observation.  "There  stand,"  he  says,  "two 
pillars  of  white  marble  near  the  great  fountain  in  the  city 
of  Tigisis,  bearing  an  inscription  in  Phoenician  characters, 
and  in  the  Phoenician  language,  which  runs  as  follows."  I 
cannot  see  that  there  would  be  any  sufficient  reason  for 
doubting  the  truth  of  this  very  clear  and  exact  statement, 
even  if  it  stood  alone,  and  were  unconfirmed  by  any  other 
writer.  Two  writers,  however,  confirm  it — one  of  an  earlier 
and  the  other  of  a  later  date ;  and  the  three  testimonies 
are  proved,  by  their  slight  variations,  to  be  independent 
of  one  another.  There  is  then  sufficient  reason  to  believe 
that  a  Phoenician  inscription  to  the  effect  stated  existed  at 
Tangiers  in  the  time  of  the  Lower  Empire ;  and  the  true 
question  for  historical  criticism  to  consider  and  determine 
is,  what  is  the  weight  and  value  of  such  an  inscription.  (22> 
That  it  was  not  a  Jewish  or  a  Christian  monument  is 
certain  from  the  epithet  of  "  plunderer "  or  "  robber " 
applied  in  it  to  Joshua.  That  it  was  more  ancient  than 
Christianity  seems  probable  from  the  language  and  charac 
ter  in  which  it  was  written.  (23>  It  would  appear  to  have 
been  a  genuine  Phoenician  monument,  of  an  antiquity 
which  cannot  now  be  decided,  but  which  was  probably 
remote ;  and  it  must  be  regarded  as  embodying  an  ancient 
tradition,  current  in  this  part  of  Africa  in  times  anterior  to 
Christianity,  which  very  remarkably  confirms  the  Hebrew 
narrative. 

There  is  another  event  of  a  public  nature,  belonging  to 
this  portion  of  the  history,  of  which  some  have  thought  to 


88  HISTORICAL  EVIDENCES  OP  THE  LECT.  III. 

find  a  confirmation  in  the  pages  of  a  profane  writer. 
"  The  Egyptians,"  says  Herodotus,  (24)  "  declare  that  since 
Egypt  was  a  kingdom,  the  sun  has  on  four  several  occa 
sions  moved  from  his  wonted  course,  twice  rising  where 
he  now  sets,  and  twice  setting  where  he  now  rises."  It 
has  been  supposed  (25)  that  we  have  here  a  notice  of  that 
remarkable  time  when  "  the  sun  stood  still  in  the  midst  of 
heaven,  and  hasted  not  to  go  down  about  a  whole  day ; "  l 
as  well  as  of  that  other  somewhat  similar  occasion,  when 
"the  sun  returned  ten  degrees"  on  the  dial  of  Ahaz.2  But 
the  statement  made  to  Herodotus  by  the  Egyptian  priests 
would  very  ill  describe  the  phenomena  of  these  two  occa 
sions,  however  we  understand  the  narratives  in  Joshua  and 
Kings ;  and  the  fact  which  they  intended  to  convey  to  him 
was  probably  one  connected  rather  with  their  peculiar 
system  of  astronomical  cycles,  than  with  any  sudden  and 
violent  changes  in  the  celestial  order.  If  the  narrative  in 
Joshua  is  to  be  understood  astronomically,  of  an  actual 
cessation  or  retardation  of  the  earth's  motion,  (2G)  we  must 
admit  that  profane  history  fails  to  present  us  with  any 
mention  of  an  occurrence,  which  it  might  have  been 
expected  to  notice  with  distinctness.  But  at  the  same 
time  we  must  remember  how  scanty  are  the  remains  which 
we  possess  of  this  early  time,  and  how  strictly  they  are 
limited  to  the  recording  of  political  events  and  dynastic 
changes.  The  astronomical  records  of  the  Babylonians 
have  perished ;  and  the  lists  of  Manetho  contain  but  few 
references  to  natural  phenomena,  which  are  never  intro 
duced  except  when  they  have  a  political  bearing.  No 
valid  objection  therefore  can  be  brought  against  the  literal 
truth  of  the  narrative  in  Joshua  from  the  present  want  of 
any  profane  confirmation  of  it.  Where  the  records  of  the 

1  Josh.  x.  13.  2  Isa.  xxxviii.  8. 


LECT.  Ill       TRUTH   OF   THE   SCRIPTURE   RECORDS.  89 

past  are  so  few  and   so  slight,  the  argument  from  mero 
silence  has  neither  force  nor  place. 

The  flourishing  period  of  Jewish  history,  which  com 
mences  with  the  reign  of  David,  brought  the  chosen  people 
of  God  once  more  into  contact  with  those  principal  nations 
of  the  earth,  whose  history  has  to  some  extent  come 
down  to  us.  One  of  the  first  exploits  of  David  was  that 
great  defeat  which  he  inflicted  on  the  Syrians  of  Damascus, 
in  the  vicinity  of  the  Euphrates,  when  they  came  to  the 
assistance  of  Hadedezer  king  of  Zobah  —  a  defeat  which 
cost  them  more  than  twenty  thousand  men,  and  which  was 
followed  by  the  temporary  subjection  of  Damascus  to  the 
Israelites ;  since  "  David  put  garrisons  in  Syria  of  Damas 
cus,  and  the  Syrians  became  servants  to  David,  and 
brought  gifts."1  This  war  is  mentioned  not  only  by  Eu- 
polemus,  (27>  who  appears  to  have  been  well  acquainted  with 
the  Jewish  Scriptures,  but  also  by  Nicolas  of  Damascus, 
the  friend  of  Augustus  Ca3sar,  who  clearly  draws  his  his 
tory  from  the  records  of  his  native  place.  "After  this," 
says  Nicolas,  "  there  was  a  certain  Hadad,  a  native  Syrian, 
who  had  great  power:  he  ruled  over  Damascus,  and  all 
Syria,  except  Phoenicia.  He  likewise  undertook  a  war 
with  David,  the  king  of  Juda?a,  and  contended  against  him 
in  a  number  of  battles ;  in  the  last  of  them  all  —  which  was 
by  the  river  Euphrates,  and  in  which  he  suffered  defeat  — 
showing  himself  a  prince  of  the  greatest  courage  and 
prowess."  C28)  This  is  a  testimony  of  the  same  nature 
with  those  already  adduced  from  Berosus  and  Manetho; 
it  is  a  separate  and  independent  notice  of  an  event  in 
Jewish  history,  which  has  come  down  to  us  from  the  other 
party  in  the  transaction,  with  particulars  not  contained  in 
the  Jewish  account,  yet  compatible  with  all  that  is  so 

1  2  Sam.  viii.  6.     Comp.  1  Chr.  xviii.  6. 
8* 


90  HISTORICAL   EVIDENCES   OP  THE  LECT.  III. 

contained,  and  strictly  corroborative  of  the  main  circum 
stances  of  the  Hebrew  narrative. 

The  other  wars  of  the  son  of  Jesse  were  with  enemies 
of  inferior  power  and  importance,  as  the  Philistines,  the 
Moabites,  the  Ammonites,  the  Idumseans,  and  the  Ama- 
lekites.  Eupolemus  mentions  most  of  these  successes ;  C29) 
but  otherwise  we  have  no  recognition  of  them  by  profane 
writers,  which  cannot  be  considered  surprising,  since  there 
are  no  ancient  histories  extant  wherein  these  nations  are 
mentioned  otherwise  than  incidentally.  We  have,  how 
ever,  one  further  point  of  contact  between  sacred  and 
profane  history  at  this  period  which  is  of  considerable 
interest  and  importance,  and  which  requires  separate  con 
sideration.  I  speak  of  the  connection,  seen  now  for  the 
first  time,  between  Juda3a  and  Phoenicia,  which,  separated 
by  natural  obstacles,  (3°)  and  hitherto,  perhaps,  to  some 
extent  by  intervening  tribes,  only  began  to  hold  relations 
with  each  other  when  the  conquests  of  David  brought 
Judaea  into  a  new  position  among  the  powers  of  these 
regions.  It  was  necessary  for  the  commerce  of  Phoenicia 
that  she  should  enjoy  the  friendship  of  whatever  power 
commanded  the  great  lines  of  inland  traffic,  which  ran 
through  Ccele-Syria  and  Damascus,  by  Hamath  and  Tad- 
mor,  to  the  Euphrates.  (31>  Accordingly  we  find  that  upon 
the  "establishment"  and  "  exaltation"  of  David's  kingdom,1 
overtures  were  at  once  made  to  him  by  the  chief  Phoeni 
cian  power  of  the  day ;  and  his  good  will  was  secured  by 
benefits  of  the  most  acceptable  kind  —  the  loan  of  skilled 
artificers  and  the  gift  of  cedar-beams  "  in  abundance  "  2  — 
after  which  a  firm  friendship  was  established  between  the 
two  powers,3  which  continued  beyond  the  reign  of  David 
into  that  of  Solomon  his  son.4  Now  here  it  is  most 

1  2  Sam.  v.    11,  12.  2  1  Chr.  xxii.  4. 

3  1  Kings  v.  1.  "  Ibid,  verse  12, 


LECT.  in.       TRUTH  OP  THE  SCRIPTURE  RECORDS.  91 

interesting  to  see  whether  the  Hebrew  writer  has  cor 
rectly  represented  the  condition  of  Phoenicia  at  the  time ; 
whether  the  name  which  he  has  assigned  to  his  Phoenician 
princess  one  that  Phoenicians  bore  or  the  contrary;  and 
finally,  whether  there  is  any  trace  of  the  reign  of  this  par 
ticular  prince  at  this  time. 

With  regard  to  the  first  point,  it  is  to  be  observed,  that 
the  condition  of  Phoenicia  varied  at  different  periods. 
While  we  seem  to  trace  throughout  the  whole  history  a 
constant  recognition  of  some  one  city  as  predominant 
among  the  various  towns,  if  not  as  sovereign  over  them, 
we  do  not  always  find  the  same  city  occupying  this  posi 
tion.  In  the  most  ancient  times  it  is  Sidon  which  claims 
and  exercises  this  precedency  and  preeminence ;  C32)  in 
the  later  times  the  dignity  has  passed  to  Tyre,  which  is 
thenceforward  recognized  as  the  leading  power.  Homer 
implies,  C33)  Strabo  (34)  and  Justin  t35)  distinctly  assert,  the 
ancient  superiority  of  Sidon,  which  was  said  to  have  been 
the  primitive  settlement,  whence  the  remainder  were 
derived.  On  the  other  hand,  Dius  (3G)  and  Menander,  (3?) 
who  drew  their  Phoenician  histories  from  the  native 
records,  clearly  show  that  at  a  time  anterior  to  David, 
Tyre  had  become  the  leading  state,  which  she  continued 
to  be  until  the  time  of  Alexander.  (38)  The  notices  of 
Phoenicia  in  Scripture  are  completely  in  accordance  with 
what  we  have  thus  gathered  from  profane  sources.  While 
Sidon  alone  appears  to  have  been  known  to  Moses,1  and 
Tyre  occurs  in  Joshua  as  a  mere  stronghold  in  marked 
contrast  with  imperial  Sidon,  ("great  Zidon,"  as  she  is 
called  more  than  once) 2  —  whose  dominion  'seems  to 
extend  along  the  coast  to  Carmel,  (39)  and  certainly  reaches 
inland  as  far  as  Laish  3  —  in  Samuel  and  Kings  the  case  is 

1  Gen.  x.  15;  xlix.  13.  2  Josh.  xi.  8;  xix.  28. 

3  Judges  xvii.  7  and  28. 


92  HISTORICAL   EVIDENCES   OF   THE  LECT.  III. 

changed ;  Sidon  has  no  longer  a  distinctive  epithet ; l  and 
it  is  the  "  king  of  Tyre "  who  on  behalf  of  his  countrymen 
makes  advances  to  David,  and  who  is  evidently  the  chief 
Phoenician  potentate  of  the  period. 

Further,  when  we  look  to  the  name  borne  by  this  prince 
—  the  first  Pho?nician  mentioned  byname  in  Scripture  — 
we  are  at  once  struck  with  its  authentic  character.  That 
Hiram  was  really  a  Phoenician  name,  and  one  which  kings 
were  in  the  habit  of  bearing,  is  certain  from  the  Assyrian 
Inscriptions  (4°)  and  from  Herodotus,  (41)  as  well  as  from  the 
Phoenician  historians,  Dius  and  Menander.  And  these  last- 
named  writers  not  only  confirm  the  name  as  one  which  a 
king  of  Tyre  might  have  borne,  but  show  moreover  that  it 
was  actually  borne  by  the  Tynan  king  contemporary  with 
Solomon  and  David,  of  whom  they  relate  circumstances 
which  completely  identify  him  with  the  monarch  who  is 
stated  in  Scripture  to  have  been  on  such  friendly  terms  with 
those  princes.  They  do  not  indeed  appear  to  have  made 
any  mention  of  David ;  but  they  spoke  distinctly  of  the 
close  connection  between  Hiram  and  Solomon ;  adding 
facts,  which,  though  not  contained  in  Scripture,  are  remark 
ably  in  accordance  with  the  sacred  narrative.  For  instance, 
both  Menander  and  Dius  related  that  "hard  questions" 
were  sent  by  Solomon  to  Hiram  to  be  resolved  by  him ;  (49> 
while  Dius  added,  that  Hiram  proposed  similar  puzzles  to 
Solomon  in  return,  which  that  monarch  with  all  his  wisdom 
was  unable  to  answer.  (43)  We  may  see  in  this  narrative, 
not  only  a  resemblance  to  the  famous  visit  of  the  "  Queen 
of  the  South,"2  who,  "when  she  heard  of  the  fame  of  Solo 
mon,  came  to  prove  him  with  hard  questions;"3  but  also 
an  illustration  of  the  statement  that  "  all  the  earth  sought 
to  Solomon  to  hear  his  wisdom,  which  God  had  put  in  his 

1  2  Sam.  xxiv.  6.  a  Matt.  xii.  42.  3  1  Kings  x.  1. 


LECT.  HI.       TRUTH   OP   THE   SCRIPTURE  RECORDS.  93 

heart."1  Again,  Menander  stated  that  Hiram  gave  his 
daughter  in  marriage  to  Solomon.  (44>  This  fact  is  not 
recorded  in  Scripture ;  but  still  it  is  illustrative  of  the  state 
ment  that  "King  Solomon  loved  many  strange  women, 
together  with  the  daughter  of  Pharaoh,  women  of  the  Mo- 
abites,  Ammonites,  Edomites,  Zidonians^  and  Hittites.  .  .  . 
And  he  had  seven  hundred  wives,  princesses."2  One  of 
these  we  may  well  conceive  to  have  been  the  daughter  of 
the  Tyrian  king. 

The  relations  of  Solomon  with  Egypt  have  received  at 
present  but  little  illustration  from  native  Egyptian  sources. 
Our  epitome  of  Manetho  gives  us  nothing  but  a  bare  list  of 
names  at  the  period  to  which  Solomon  must  belong ;  and 
the  Egyptian  monuments  for  the  time  are  particularly 
scanty  and  insignificant.  (45>  Moreover  the  omission  of  the 
Jewish  writers  to  place  on  record  the  distinctive  name  of 
the  Pharaoh  whose  daughter  Solomon  married,  forbids  his 
satisfactory  identification  with  any  special  Egyptian  mon 
arch.  Eupolemus  indeed  professed  to  supply  this  omission 
of  th$  older  historians,  (46)  and  enlivened  his  history  with 
copies  of  the  letters  which  (according  to  him)  passed  be 
tween  Solomon  and  Vaphres  or  Apries,  king  of  Egypt ;  but 
this  name  is  clearly  taken  from  a  later  portion  of  Egyptian 
history,  and  none  at  all  similar  to  it  is  found  either  on  the 
monuments  or  in  the  dynastic  lists  for  the  period.  The 
Egyptian  marriage  of  Solomon,  therefore,  and  his  friendly 
connection  with  a  Pharaoh  of  the  twenty-first  dynasty,  have 
at  present  no  confirmation  from  profane  sources,  beyond 
that  which  it  derives  from  Eupolemus ;  but  the  change  in 
the  relations  between  the  two  courts  towards  the  close  of 
Solomon's  reign,  which  is  indicated  by  the  protection  ex 
tended  to  his  enemy  Jeroboam  by  a  new  king,  Shishak, 
1  1  Kings  x.  24.  2  Ibid.  xi.  1-3. 


94  HISTORICAL   EVIDENCES   OF   THE  LECT.  III. 

receives  some  illustration  and  confirmation  both  from  the 
monuments  and  from  the  native  historian.  Shishak  makes 
his  appearance  at  a  suitable  point,  so  far  as  chronology  is 
concerned,  (47>  in  the  lists  of  Manetho,  where  he  is  called 
Sesonchis  or  Sesonchosis^48)  and  his  name  occurs  likewise 
in  the  sculptures  of  the  period  under  its  Egyptian  form  of 
Sheshonk.  (49>  The  confirmation  which  the  monuments 
lend  to  the  capture  of  Jerusalem  by  this  king  will  be  con 
sidered  in  the  next  Lecture.  At  present,  we  have  only  to 
note,  besides  the  occurrence  of  the  name  at  the  place 
where  we  should  naturally  look  for  it  in  the  lists,  the  fact 
that  it  occurs  at  the  commencement  of  a  new  dynasty  —  a 
dynasty  furnished  by  a  new  city,  and  quite  of  a  different 
character  from  that  preceding  it  —  which  would  therefore 
be  in  no  way  connected  with  Solomon,  and  would  not  be 
unlikely  to  reverse  the  policy  of  the  house  which  it  had 
supplanted. 

The  wealth  and  magnificence  of  Solomon  were  celebrated 
by  Eupolemus  and  (5°)  Theophilus,(51Hhe  former  of  whom  gave 
an  elaborate  account  of  the  temple  and  its  ornaments.  As, 
however,  these  writers  were  merely  well-informed  Greeks 
who  reported  to  their  countrymen  the  ideas  entertained  of 
their  history  by  the  Jews  of  the  third  and  fourth  centimes 
B.  C.,  I  forbear  to  dwell  upon  their  testimonies.  I  shall 
therefore  close  here  the  direct  confirmations  from  profane 
sources  of  this  portion  of  the  Scripture  narrative,  and  pro 
ceed  to  consider  briefly  some  of  the  indirect  points  of 
agreement,  with  which  this  part  of  the  history,  like  every 
other,  abounds. 

First,  then,  it  may  be  observed,  that  the  empire  ascribed 
to  David  and  Solomon  is  an  empire  of  exactly  that  kind 
which  alone  Western  Asia  was  capable  of  producing,  and 
did  produce,  about  the  period  in  question.  The  modern 


LECT.  IIL       TRUTH   OF  THE   SCRIPTURE   RECORDS.  9o 

system  of  centralized  organization  by  which  the  various 
provinces  of  a  vast  empire  are  cemented  into  a  compact 
mass,  was  unknown  to  the  ancient  world,  and  has  never 
been  practised  by  Asiatics.  The  satrapial  system  of  gov 
ernment,  or  that  in  which  the  provinces  retain  their  indi 
viduality,  but  are  administered  on  a  common  plan  by 
officers  appointed  by  the  crown — which  has  prevailed  gen 
erally  through  the  East  since  the  time  of  its  first  introduc 
tion —  was  the  invention  of  Darius  Hystaspis.  Before  his 
time  the  greatest  monarchies  had  a  slighter  and  weaker 
organization.  They  were  in  all  cases  composed  of  a  num 
ber  of  separate  kingdoms,  each  under  its  own  native  king ; 
and  the  sole  link  uniting  them  together  and  constituting 
them  an  empire,  was  the  subjection  of  these  petty  mon- 
archs  to  a  single  suzerain.  (52)  The  Babylonian,  Assyrian, 
Median,  and  Lydian,  were  all  empires  of  this  type  —  mon 
archies,  wherein  a  sovereign  prince  at  the  head  of  a  power 
ful  kingdom  was  acknowledged  as  suzerain  by  a  nnmber  of 
inferior  princes,  each  in  his  own  right  sole  ruler  of  his  own 
country.  And  the  subjection  of  the  inferior  princes  con 
sisted  chiefly,  if  not  solely,  in  two  points ;  they  were  bound 
to  render  homage  to  their  suzerain,  and  to  pay  him  annu 
ally  a  certain  stated  tribute.  Thus,  when  we  hear  that 
"Solomon  reigned  over  all  the  kingdoms  from  the  river 
(Euphrates)  unto  the  land  of  the  Philistines  and  unto  the 
border  of  Egypt "  *  —  or  again,  that  "  he  had  dominion  over 
all  the  region  on  this  side  the  river,  from  Tiphsah  (or 
Thapsacus  on  the  Euphrates)  to  Azzah,  (or  Gaza,  the  most 
southern  of  the  Philistine  towns,)  over  all  the  kings  on  this 
side  the  river  " 2  —  and  that  "  they  brought  presents  " 3  —  "a 
rate  year  by  year"*  —  and  "served  Solomon  all  the  days  of 

1  1  Kings  iv.  21.  2  Ibid,  verse  24. 

3  Ibid,  verse  21.  *  Ibid.  x.  25. 


96  HISTORICAL   EVIDENCES   OF   THE  LECT.  III. 

his  life," L  we  recognize  at  once  a  condition  of  things  with 
which  we  are  perfectly  familiar  from  profane  sources ;  and 
we  feel  that  at  any  rate  this  account  is  in  entire  harmony 
with  the  political  notions  and  practices  of  the  day. 

Similarly,  with  respect  to  the  buildings  of  Solomon,  it  may 
be  remarked,  that  they  appear,  from  the  description  given 
of  them  in  Kings  and  Chronicles,  to  have  belonged  exactly 
to  that  style  of  architecture  which  we  find  in  fact  to  have 
prevailed  over  Western  Asia  in  the  earliest  times,  and  of 
which  we  have  still  remains  on  the  ancient  sites  of  Nineveh, 
Susa,  and  Persepolis.  The  strong  resemblance  in  general 
structure  and  arrangement  of  the  palace  of  Esar-haddon  to 
that  which  Solomon  constructed  for  his  own  use,  has  been 
noticed  by  our  great  Mesopotamian  excavator ;  (53)  and  few 
can  fail  to  see  in  the  "  house  of  the  forest  of  Lebanon," 2 
with  its  five-and-forty  cedar  pillars  forming  the  "  forest " 
from  which  the  palace  derived  its  name,  a  resemblance  to 
the  remarkable  structures  at  Susa  and  Persepolis,  in  each 
of  which  the  pillars  on  which  the  entire  edifice  rested  form 
a  sort  of  forest,  amounting  in  number  to  seventy-two.  It 
is  true  that  in  the  Persian  buildings  the  columns  are  of 
stone  ;  but  this  is  owing  to  the  advance  of  art.  The  great 
chambers  in  the  Assyrian  palaces  had  no  stone  columns, 
but  are  regarded  by  those  who  have  paid  most  attention  to 
the  subject,  as  having  had  their  roofs  supported  by  pillars 
of  cedar.  (54)  Nor  does  the  resemblance  of  which  I  am 
speaking  consist  only  in  the  multiplicity  of  columns.  The 
height  of  the  Persepolitan  columns,  which  is  forty-four 
feet,  (55)  almost  exactly  equals  the  "  thirty  cubits  "  of  Solo 
mon's  house  ;  and  there  is  even  an  agreement  in  the  general 
character  of  the  capitals,  which  has  attracted  notice  from 
some  who  have  written  upon  the  history  of  art.  (56> 

1  1  Kings  iv.  21.  2  Ibid.  vii.  2. 


LECT.  III.       TRUTH   OF  THE   SCRIPTURE  RECORDS.  97 

Again,  the  copious  use  of  gold  in  ornamentation,1  which 
seems  to  moderns  so  improbable,  (57>  was  a  practice  known 
to  the  Phoenicians,  the  Assyrians,  and  the  Babylonians.  (58> 
The  brazen  pillars,  Jachin  and  Boaz,  set  up  in  the  court  of 
the  temple,2  recall  the  pillar  of  gold  which  Hiram,  accord 
ing  to  Menander,  (59)  dedicated  in  the  temple  of  Baal,  and 
the  two  pillars  which  appear  in  the  coins  of  Cyprus  before 
the  temple  of  the  Phoenician  Venus,  t60)  The  "  throne  of 
ivory " 3  has  its  parallel  in  the  numerous  ivory  carvings 
lately  brought  from  Mesopotamia,  which  in  many  cases 
have  plainly  formed  the  covering  of  furniture.  (61)  The 
lions,  which  stood  beside  the  throne,4  bring  to  our  mind  at 
once  the  lions'  feet  with  which  Assyrian  thrones  were 
ornamented,  (62)  and  the  gigantic  sculptured  figures  which 
commonly  formed  the  portals  of  the  great  halls.  In  these 
and  many  other  points  the  state  and  character  of  art, 
which  the  Hebrew  writers  describe  as  existing  in  Solomon's 
time,  receives  confirmation  from  profane  sources,  and 
especially  from  those  remains  of  a  time  not  long  subse 
quent,  which  have  been  recently  brought  to  light  by  the 
researches  made  in  Mesopotamia. 

Once  more  —  the  agreement  between  the  character  of 
the  Phoenicians  as  drawn  in  Kings  and  Chronicles,  and 
that  which  we  know  from  other  sources  to  have  attached 
to  them,  is  worthy  of  remark.  The  wealth,  the  enterprise, 
the  maritime  skill,  and  the  eminence  in  the  arts,  which 
were  the  leading  characteristics  of  the  Phoenicians  in 
Homer's  time,  are  abundantly  noted  by  the  writers  of 
Kings  and  Chronicles;  who  contrast  the  comparative 
ignorance  and  rudeness  of  their  own  nation  with  the 
science  and  "cunning"  of  their  neighbors.  "Thou 

1  1  Kings  vi.  20,  21,  28,  30,  32,  &c.  2  Ibid.  vii.  15-22. 

3  Ibid.  x.  19.  4  Ibid,  verses  19  and  20. 

9 


98  HISTORICAL  EVIDENCES   OF  THE  LECT.  HI. 

knowest,"  writes  king  Solomon  to  Hiram,  "  that  there  is 
not  among  us  any  that  can  skill  to  hew  timber  like  the 
Sidonians." l  "  Send  me  a  man,"  again  he  writes,  "  cunning 
to  work  in  gold,  and  in  silver,  and  in  brass,  and  in  iron,  and 
in  purple,  and  crimson,  and  blue,  and  that  can  skill  to  grave 
with  the  cunning  men  which  are  with  me  in  Judah  and  in 
Jerusalem,  whom  David  my  father  did  provide."2  And 
the  man  sent,  "  a  man  of  Tyre,  a  worker  in  brass,  filled  with 
wisdom,  and  understanding,  and  cunning  to  work  all  works 
in  brass,  came  to  king  Solomon,  and  wrought  all  his 
work."3  So  too  when  Solomon  "made  a  navy  of  ships  in 
Ezion-geber,  on  the  shore  of  the  Red  Sea,"  Hiram  "  sent  in 
the  navy  his  servants,  shipmen  that  had  knowledge  of  the 
sea>  with  the  servants  of  Solomon." 4  It  has  been  well  re 
marked,  (62>  that  "we  discover  the  greatness  of  Tyre  in 
this  age,  not  so  much  from  its  own  annals  as  from  those 
of  the  Israelites,  its  neighbors."  The  scanty  fragments  of 
the  Phoenician  history  which  alone  remain  to  us  are  filled 
out  and  illustrated  by  the  more  copious  records  of  the 
Jews ;  which,  with  a  .simplicity  and  truthfulness  that  we 
rarely  meet  with  in  profane  writers,  set  forth  in  the 
strongest  terms  their  obligations  to  their  friendly  neighbors. 
These  are  a  few  of  the  indirect  points  of  agreement  be 
tween  profane  history  and  this  portion  of  the  sacred  nar 
rative.  It  would  be  easy  to  adduce  others ;  C63)  but  since, 
within  the  space  which  an  occasion  like  the  present  allows, 
it  is  impossible  to  do  more  than  broadly  to  indicate  the 
sort  of  evidence  which  is  producible  in  favor  of  the 
authenticity  of  Scripture,  perhaps  the  foregoing  specimens 
may  suffice.  It  only  remains  therefore  to  sum  up  briefly 
the  results  to  which  we  seem  to  have  attained. 

1  1  Kings  v.  6.  2  2  Chron.  ii.  7. 

3  1  Kings  vii.  14.  4  Ibid.  ix.  26,  27. 


LECT.  III.       TRUTH   OF  THE   SCRIPTURE  RECORDS.  99 

We  have  been  engaged  with  a  dark  period  —  a  period 
when  the  nations  of  the  world  had  little  converse  with  one 
another,  when  civilization  was  but  beginning,  when  the 
knowledge  of  letters  was  confined  within  narrow  bounds, 
when  no  country  but  Egypt  had  a  literature,  and  when 
Egypt  herself  was  in  a  state  of  unusual  depression,  and 
had  little  communication  with  nations  beyond  her  borders. 
We  could  not  expect  to  obtain  for  such  a  period  any  great 
amount  of  profane  illustration.  Yet  the  Jewish  history  of 
even  this  obscure  time  has  been  found  to  present  points  of 
direct  agreement  with  the  Egyptian  records,  scanty  as  they 
are  for  it,  with  the  Phoenician  annals,  with  the  traditions 
of  the  Syrians  of  Damascus,  and  with  those  of  the  early  in 
habitants  of  Northern  Africa,  It  has  also  appeared  that  the 
Hebrew  account  of  the  time  is  in  complete  harmony  with  all 
that  we  otherwise  know  of  Western  Asia  at  the  period  in 
question,  of  its  political  condition,  its  civilization,  its  arts  and 
sciences,  its  manners  and  customs,  its  inhabitants.  Illustra 
tions  of  these  points  have  been  furnished  by  the  Assyrian 
inscriptions,  the  Assyrian  and  Persian  palaces,  the  Phoenician 
coins  and  histories,  and  the  earliest  Greek  poetry.  Nor  is 
it  possible  to  produce  from  authentic  history  any  contra 
diction  of  this  or  any  other  portion  of  the  Hebrew  records. 
When  such  a  contradiction  has  seemed  to  be  found,  it  has 
invariably  happened  that  in  the  progress  of  historical 
inquiry,  the  author  from  whom  it  proceeds  has  lost  credit, 
and  finally  come  to  be  regarded  as  an  utterly  untrust 
worthy  authority,  t64)  Internally  consistent,  externally 
resting  upon  contemporary  or  nearly  contemporary  docu 
ments,  and  both  directly  and  indirectly  confirmed  by  the 
records  of  neighboring  nations,  the  Hebrew  account  of  this 
time  is  entitled  to  be  received  as  a  true  and  authentic  his 
tory  on  almost  every  ground  upon  which  such  a  claim  can 


100  TRUTH  OF  THE  SCRIPTURE  RECORDS.      LECT.  III. 

be  rested.  It  was  then  justly  and  with  sufficient  reason 
that  the  Proto-martyr  in  his  last  speech,1  and  the  great 
Apostle  of  the  Gentiles,  in  his  first  public  preaching  as  an 
Apostle,2  assumed  as  certain  the  simple,  literal,  and  historic 
truth  of  this  portion  of  the  sacred  narrative.  Through 
God's  good  providence,  there  is  no  break  in  that  historic 
chain  which  binds  the  present  with  the  past,  the  new 
covenant  with  the  old,  Christ  with  Moses,  the  true  Israel 
with  Abraham.  A  "dark  age"  —  a  time  of  trouble  and 
confusion,  undoubtedly  supervened  upon  the  establishment 
of  the  Israelites  in  Canaan ;  but  amid  the  gloom  the  torch 
of  truth  still  passed  from  hand  to  hand  —  prophets  arose  at 
intervals  —  and  the  main  events  in  the  national  life  were 
carefully  put  on  record.  Afterwards  —  from  the  time  of 
Samuel  —  a  more  regular  system  was  introduced ;  events 
were  chronicled  as  they  occurred ;  and  even  the  sceptic 
allows  that  "with  the  Books  of  Samuel,  the  history 
assumes  an  appearance  far  more  authentic  than  that  of  the 
contemporary  history  of  any  other  ancient  nation."  (65> 
This  admission  may  well  be  taken  to  render  any  further 
argument  unnecessary,  and  with  it  we  may  properly  con 
clude  this  portion  of  our  inquiry. 

1  Acts  vii.  45-47.  2  Ibid.  xiii.  19-22. 


LECTURE    IY. 

AND  AHIJAH  SAID  TO  JEROBOAM,  TAKE  THEE  TEN  PIECES  t  FOR  THUS 
SAITH  THE  LORD,  THE  GOD  OF  ISRAEL,  BEHOLD,  I  WILL  REND  THE 
KINGDOM  OUT  OF  THE  HAND  OF  SOLOMON,  AND  WILL  GIVE  TEN 
TRIBES  TO  THEE  :  BUT  HE  SHALL  HAVE  ONE  TRIBE  FOR  MY  SERVANT 
DAVID'S  SAKE.  —  1  KINGS  XI.  31,  32. 

THE  subject  of  the  present  Lecture  will  be  the  history 
of  the  chosen  people  from  the  separation  of  the  two  king 
doms  by  the  successful  revolt  of  Jeroboam,  to  the  comple 
tion  of  the  Captivity  of  Judah,  upon  the  destruction  of 
Jerusalem,  in  the  nineteenth  year  of  Nebuchadnezzar,  king 
of  Babylon.  The  space  of  time  embraced  is  thus  a  period 
of  about  four  centuries.  Without  pretending  to  a  chrono 
logical  exactitude,  for  which  our  data  are  insufficient,  we 
may  lay  it  down  as  tolerably  certain,  that  the  establish 
ment  of  the  two  kingdoms  of  Israel  and  Judah  on  the  ruins 
of  Solomon's  empire  is  an  event  belonging  to  the  earlier 
half  of  the  tenth  century  before  our  era ;  while  the  destruc 
tion  of  Jerusalem  may  be  assigned  with  much  confidence 
to  the  year  B.  C.  586. 

These  centuries  constitute  a  period  second  in  importance 
to  none  of  equal  length.  They  comprise  the  great  devel 
opment,  the  decadence  and  the  fall  of  Assyria — the  sudden 
growth  of  Media  and  Babylon  —  the  Egyptian  revival 
under  the  Psammetichi  —  the  most  glorious  time  of  the 
Phoenician  cities  —  the  rise  of  Sparta  and  Athens  to  pre 
eminence  in  Greece  —  the  foundation  of  Carthage  and  of 

9  *  (101) 


102  HISTORICAL   EVIDENCES   OP   THE  LECT.  IV. 

Rome  —  and  the  spread4  of  civilization  by  means  of  the 
Greek  and  Phoenician  colonies,  from  the  Palus  Ma3otis  to 
the  Pillars  of  Hercules.  Moreover,  they  contain  within 
them  the  transition  time  of  most  profane  history  —  the 
space  within  which  it  passes  from  the  dreamy  cloud-land 
of  myth  and  fable  into  the  sober  region  of  reality  and  fact, 
exchanging  poetic  fancy  for  prosaic  truth,  and  assuming 
that  character  of  authenticity  and  trustworthiness,  which 
is  required  to  fit  it  thoroughly  for  the  purpose  whereto  it 
is  applied  in  these  Lectures.  Hence,  illustrations  of  the 
sacred  narrative,  hitherto  somewhat  rare  and  infrequent, 
will  now  crowd  upon  us,  and  make  the  principal  difficulty  at 
the  present  stage  that  of  selection.  Egypt,  Assyria,  Baby 
lon,  Phoenicia,  Greece,  will  vie  with  each  other  in  offering 
to  us  proofs  that  the  Hebrew  records,  for  this  time,  contain 
a  true  and  authentic  account  of  the  fortunes  of  the  race ; 
and  instead  of  finding  merely  a  few  points  here  and  there 
to  illustrate  from  profane  sources,  we  shall  now  be  able  to 
produce  confirmatory  proof  of  almost  every  important 
event  in  the  history. 

Before  entering,  however,  on  this  branch  of  the  inquiry, 
some  consideration  must  be  given  to  the  character  of 
the  documents  in  which  this  portion  of  the  history  has 
come  down  to  us,  and  to  the  confirmation  which  those 
documents  obtain  from  other  Books  in  the  Sacred 
Canon. 

It  was  observed  in  the  last  Lecture,  that  the  Books  of 
Kings  and  Chronicles  are  compilations  from  State  Papers 
preserved  in  the  public  archives  of  the  Jewish  nation/1)  the 
authors  of  those  papers  being  probably,  in  most  cases, 
the  Prophets  in  best  repute  at  the  time  of  their  com 
position.  This  is  particularly  apparent  from  the  Second 
Book  of  Chronicles,  where  the  author,  besides  citing  in 


LECT.  IV.      TRUTH   OF  THE  SCRIPTURE   RECORDS.  103 

several  places l  "  the  Book  of  the  Chronicles  of  the  Kings 
of  Israel  and  Judah,"  particularizes  no  fewer  than  thirteen 
works  of  prophets,  some  of  which  he  expressly  states  to 
have  formed  a  portion  of  the  general  "  Book  of  the  Chroni 
cles,"2  while  most  of  the  others  may  be  probably  con 
cluded  to  have  done  the  same.  The  Books  of  Samuel, 
of  Nathan,  and  of  Gad,  the  Prophecy  of  Ahijah  the  Shi- 
lonite,  and  the  Visions  of  Iddo  the  seer,  which  are  among 
the  works  quoted  by  the  Chronicler,  have  been  already 
noticed.  (2>  To  these  must  now  be  added,  "  the  Book  of 
Shemaiah  the  Prophet,"3  "the  Book  of  Iddo  the  seer,  con 
cerning  genealogies," 4  "  the  Story  or  Commentary  of  the 
Prophet  Iddo,"5  "the  Book  of  Jehu  the  son  of  Hanani,"8 
"the  Acts  of  Uzziah  by  Isaiah,"7  "the  Vision  of  Isaiah,"8 
and  the  book  of  "  the  Sayings  of  the  Seers  " 9  —  all  works 
which  served  as  materials  to  the  Chronicler,  and  to  which 
he  refers  his  readers.  We  found  reason  to  believe,  in  the 
last  Lecture,  that  our  Book  (or  Books)  of  Samuel  is  the 
very  work  which  the  Chronicler  quotes  under  the  three 
names  of  the  Book  of  Samuel,  the  Book  of  Nathan,  and 
the  Book  of  Gad.  Similarly  the  Book  of  the  Acts  of  Sol 
omon  10  would  seem  to  have  been  composed  of  a  Book  of 
Nathan,  a  Book  of  Ahijah  the  Shilonite,  and  a  portion 
of  a  Book  of  Iddo  the  seer.11  And  the  Book,  or  rather 
the  two  Books,  (3)  of  the  Chronicles  of  the  Kings  of 
Israel  and  Judah,  would  appear  to  have  been  carried  on  in 
the  same  way ;  first,  by  Iddo,  in  his  "  Story,"  or  "  Com- 

1  2  Chron.  xvi.  11 ;  xxv.  26 ;  xxvii.  7  ;  xxviii.  26  ;  xxxii.  32  ;  xxxiii. 
18;  and  xxxv.  27. 

2  Ibid.  xx.  34  ;  and  xxxiii.  32. 

3  Ibid.  xii.  15.  4  Ibid.  6  Ibid.  xiii.  22. 

6  Ibid.  xx.  34.  7  Ibid.  xxvi.  22.  8  Ibid,  xxxii.  32. 

9  Ibid,  xxxiii.  19.  10  1  Kings  xi.  41.  "  2  Chron.  ix.  29. 


104  HISTORICAL  EVIDENCES   OF  THE  LECT.  IV. 

mentary ; "  then  by  Jehu,  the  son  of  Hanani,  in  the  Book 
which  we  are  told  was  made  to  form  a  part  of  the  Book 
of  the  Kings  of  Israel ;  (4)  and  afterwards  by  other  prophets 
and  seers,  among  whom  were  certainly  Isaiah  and  Jere 
miah.  That  Isaiah  wrote  the  history  of  the  reign  of 
TJzziah  is  expressly  stated;1  and  it  is  also  said  that  his 
account  of  the  acts  of  Hezekiah  formed  a  portion  of  the 
Book  of  the  Kings  of  Judah ;  (5)  besides  Avhich,  the  close 
verbal  agreement  between  certain  historical  chapters  in 
Isaiah  and  in  Kings,  (6)  would  suffice  to  prove  that  this 
part  of  the  state  history  was  composed  by  him.  A  similar 
agreement  between  portions  of  Kings  and  of  Jeremiah, 
leads  to  a  similar  conclusion  with  respect  to  that  prophet.  (7) 
Thus  Samuel,  Gad,  Nathan,  Ahijah,  Shemaiah,  Iddo,  Jehu, 
Isaiah,  Jeremiah,  and  other  prophets  contemporary  with 
the  events,  are  to  be  regarded  as  the  real  authorities  for 
the  Jewish  history  as  it  is  delivered  to  us  in  Kings  and 
Chronicles.  "  The  prophets,  who  in  their  prophecies  and 
addresses  held  forth  to  the  people,  not  only  the  law  as  a 
rule  and  direction,  but  also  the  history  of  the  past  as  the 
mirror  and  example  of  their  life,  must  have  reckoned  the 
composition  of  the  theocratic  history  among  the  duties  of 
the  call  given  to  them  by  the  Lord,  and  composed  accord 
ingly  the  history  of  their  time  by  noting  down  public 
annals,  in  which,  without  respect  of  persons,  the  life  and 
conduct  of  the  kings  were  judged  and  exhibited  according 
to  the  standard  of  the  revealed  law."  (8)  With  this  judg 
ment  of  a  living  German  writer,  there  is  sufficient  reason 
to  concur ;  and  we  may  therefore  conclude  that  the  history 
in  Kings  and  Chronicles  rests  upon  the  testimony  of  con 
temporary  and  competent  witnesses. 

The  only  objection  of  any  importance  that  Rationalism 

1  2  Chron.  xxvi.  22. 


LECT.  IV.       TRUTH  OF  THE  SCRIPTURE  RECORDS.  105 

makes  to  the  conclusion  which  we  have  here  reached,  is 
drawn  from  the  circumstances  of  the  time  when  the  books 
were  composed;  which  is  thought  to  militate  strongly 
against  their  having  been  drawn  directly  from  the  sources 
which  have  been  indicated.  The  authority  of  the  writers 
of  these  Books,  we  are  told,  (9)  "  cannot  have  been  the  offi 
cial  annals"  of  the  kingdoms;  for  these  must  have  perished 
at  their  destruction,  and  therefore  could  not  have  been 
consulted  by  authors  who  lived  later  than  the  Captivity. 
It  may  be  granted  that  the  mass  of  the  State  Archives  are 
likely  to  have  perished  with  Samaria  and  Jerusalem,  if  we 
understand  by  that  term  the  bulky  documents  which  con 
tained  the  details  of  official  transactions :  but  there  is  no 
more  difficulty  in  supposing  that  the  digested  annals  which 
the  prophets  had  composed  escaped,  than  there  is  in  under 
standing  how  the  Prophecy  of  Isaiah  and  the  rest  of  the 
Sacred  Volume  were  preserved.  At  any  rate,  if  there  be  a 
difficulty,  it  is  unimportant  in  the  face  of  the  plain  and 
palpable  fact,  that  the  authors  of  the  two  Books  speak  of 
the  annals  as  existing,  and  continually  refer  their  readers  to 
them  for  additional  information.  However  we  may  ac 
count  for  it,  the  "  Books  of  the  Chronicles  of  the  Kings  of 
Israel  and  Judah,"  the  different  portions  of  which  had  been 
written  by  the  prophets  above  mentioned,  were  still  extant 
when  the  authors  of  Kings  and  Chronicles  wrote  their  his 
tories,  having  escaped  the  dangers  of  war,  and  survived  the 
obscure  time  of  the  Captivity.  It  is  not  merely  that  the 
writers  in  question  profess  to  quote  from  them ;  but  they 
constantly  appeal  to  them  as  books  the  contents  of  which 
are  well  known  to  their  own  readers. 

The  confirmation  which  the  Books  of  Kings  and  Chroni 
cles  lend  to  each  other,  deserves  some  notice  while  we  are 
engaged  with  this  portion  of  the  inquiry.  Had  the  later 


106  HISTORICAL  EVIDENCES  OP  THE  LECT.  IV. 

composition  uniformly  followed,  and,  as  it  were,  echoed  the 
earlier,  there  would  have  been  but  little  advantage  in  the 
double  record.  We  should  then  only  have  known  that  the 
author  of  the  Book  of  Chronicles  regarded  the  Book  of 
Kings  as  authentic.  But  the  Chronicler  —  I  use  the  term 
in  no  offensive  sense  —  does  not  seem  really  in  any  case 
merely  to  follow  the  writer  of  Kings.  (10)  On  the  contrary, 
he  goes  straight  to  the  fountain-head,  and  draws  his  mate 
rials  partly  from  the  sources  used  by  the  earlier  writer, 
partly  (as  it  seems)  from  contemporary  sources  which  that 
writer  had  neglected.  He  is  thus,  throughout,  a  distinct 
and  independent  authority  for  the  history  of  his  nation, 
standing  to  the  writer  of  Kings  as  Africanus  stands  to 
Eusebius,  in  respect  of  the  history  of  Egypt.  (n)  As  the 
double  channel  by  which  Manetho's  Egyptian  history  is 
conveyed  to  us,  renders  our  hold  upon  that  history  far 
more  firm  and  secure  than  would  have  been  the  case  had 
we  derived  our  knowledge  of  it  through  one  channel  only, 
so  the  two  parallel  accounts,  which  we  possess  in  Kings 
and  Chronicles,  of  the  history  of  Solomon  and  his  succes 
sors,  give  us  a  hold  upon  the  original  annals  of  this  period 
which  we  could  not  have  had  otherwise.  The  Chronicler, 
while  he  declines  to  be  beholden  to  the  author  of  Kings 
for  any  portion  of  his  narrative,  and  does  not  concern  him 
self  about  apparent  discrepancies  between  his  own  work 
and  that  of  the  earlier  writer,  confirms  the  whole  general 
course  of  that  writer's  history,  repeating  it,  illustrating  it, 
and  adding  to  it,  but  never  really  differing  from  it,  except 
in  such  minute  points  as  are  readily  explainable  by  slight 
corruptions  of  the  text  in  the  one  case  or  the  other.  (12) 

Further,  the  narrative  contained  in  Kings  and  Chronicles 
receives  a  large  amount  of  illustration,  and  so  of  confirma 
tion,  from  the  writings  of  the  contemporary  Prophets,  who 


LECT.  IV.   TRUTH  OF  THE  SCRIPTURE  RECORDS.       107 

exhibit  the  feelings  natural  under  the  circumstances  de 
scribed  by  the  historians,  and  incidentally  allude  to  the 
facts  recorded  by  them.  This  point  has  been  largely  illus 
trated  by  recent  writers  on  the  prophetical  Scriptures,  who 
find  the  interpretation  of  almost  every  chapter  "bound 
up  with  references  to  contemporary  events,  political  and 
social,"  and  discover  in  this  constant  connection  at  once  a 
"  source  of  occasional  difficulty,"  and  a  frequent  means  of 
throwing  great  additional  light  on  the  true  meaning  of  the 
prophetical  writers.  (13>  The  illustration  thus  afforded  to 
prophecy  by  history  is  reflected  back  to  history  from  proph 
ecy  ;  and  there  is  scarcely  an  event  in  the  Jewish  annals 
after  the  reign  of  Uzziah  —  which  is  the  time  of  the  earliest 
of  the  extant  prophetical  writings  (14)  —  that  is  not  illumi 
nated  by  some  touch  from  one  prophet  or  another.  To  take 
the  case  of  a  single  writer — Isaiah  mentions  the  succession 
of  Jewish  kings  from  Uzziah  to  Hezekiah,1  the  alliance  of 
Rezin,  king  of  Syria,  and  Pekah,  the  son  of  Remaliah,  king 
of  Israel,  against  Ahaz,2  the  desolation  of  their  country 
which  shortly  followed,3  the  plunder  of  Damascus,  and  the 
spoiling  of  Samaria  at  this  time,4  the  name  of  the  then 
high  priest,5  the  Assyrian  conquests  of  Hamath,  Aradus, 
and  Samaria,6  the  close  connection  about  this  time  of 
Egypt  and  Ethiopia,7  the  inclination  of  the  Jewish  mon- 
archs  to  lean  on  Egypt  for  support  against  Assyria,8  the 
conquest  by  Sennacherib  of  the  "fenced  cities"  of  Judah,9 
the  embassy  of  Rabshakeh,10  the  sieges  of  Libnah  and 

1  Isaiah  i.  1.  2  Ibid.  vii.  1,  2.  3  Ibid,  verse  16. 

4  Ibid.  viii.  4.     Compare  2  Kings  xvi.  9. 

6  Ibid,  verse  2.     Compare  2  Kings  xvi.  10-16. 

6  Ibid.  x.  9-11.  7  Ibid.  xx.  3-5. 

8  Ibid.  xxx.  2,  3,  &c. ;  xxxi.  1-3.  9  Ibid,  xxxvi.  1. 

10  Ibid,  verses  2-22. 


108  HISTORICAL   EVIDENCES   OF   THE  LECT.  IV. 

Lachish,1  the  preparations  of  Tirhakah  against  Sennache 
rib,2  the  prayer  of  Hezekiah,3  the  prophecy  of  Isaiah  in 
reply,4  the  destruction  of  Sennacherib's  host,5  the  return  of 
Sennacherib  himself  to  Nineveh,6  his  murder  and  the 
escape  of  his  murderers,7  Hezekiah's  illness  and  recovery,8 
and  the  embassy  sent  to  him  by  Merodach-Baladan,  king 
of  Babylon;9  —  he  glances  also  at  the  invasion  of  Tiglath- 
Pileser,  and  the  destruction  then  brought  upon  a  portion 
of  the  kingdom  of  Israel,10  at  the  oppression  of  Egypt 
under  the  Ethiopian  yoke,11  at  the  subjection  of  Judaea  to 
Assyria  during  the  reign  of  Ahaz,12  and  at  many  other 
events  of  less  consequence.  About  half  the  events  here 
mentioned  are  contained  in  the  three  historical  chapters  of 
Isaiah,13  which  are  almost  identical  with  three  chapters  of 
the  second  Book  of  Kings : 14  but  the  remainder  occur 
merely  incidentally  among  the  prophecies ;  and  these  afford 
the  same  sort  of  confirmation  to  the  plain  narrative  of 
Kings  and  Chronicles,  as  the  Epistles  of  St.  Paul  have  been 
shown  to  furnish  to  the  Acts.t15)  Jeremiah,  Amos,  Hosea, 
Micah,  and  Zephaniah,  contain  numerous  allusions  of  a 
similar  character,  illustrative  of  the  history  at  this  time  and 
subsequently.  Jeremiah,  in  particular,  is  as  copious  in 
notices  bearing  upon  Jewish  history  for  the  time  extending 
from  Josiah  to  the  Captivity,  as  Isaiah  is  for  the  reigns  of 
Ahaz  and  Hezekiah. 

Having  thus  briefly  noticed  the  character  of  the  docu 
ments  in  which  this  portion  of  the  history  has  come  down 
to  us,  and  drawn  attention  to  the  weight  of  the  scriptural 

1  Isaiah  xxxvii.  8.  2  Ibid,  verse  9.  3  Ibid,  verses  15-20. 

4  Ibid,  verses  22-35.         5  Ibid,  verse  36.  6  Ibid,  verse  37. 

7  Ibid,  verse  38.  8  Ibid,  xxxviii.  9  Ibid,  xxxix.  1,  2. 

10  Ibid.  ix.  1.  "  Ibid.  xix.  4,  &c.       12  Ibid.  xiv.  24-28. 

13  Chaps,  xxxvi.  xxxvii.  and  xxxviii.         14  Chaps,  xviii.  xix.  and  xx. 


LECT.  IV.       TRUTH  OF  THE  SCRIPTURE  RECORDS.  109 

evidence  in  favor  of  its  authenticity,  I  proceed  to  the  con 
sideration  of  that  point  which  is  the  special  subject  of 
these  Lectures — the  confirmation  which  this  part  of  the 
narrative  receives  from  profane  sources. 

The  separate  existence  of  the  two  kingdoms  of  Israel 
and  Judah  is  abundantly  confirmed  by  the  Assyrian  in 
scriptions.  Kings  of  each  country  occur  in  the  accounts 
which  the  great  Assyrian  monarchs  have  left  us  of  their 
conquests  —  the  names  being  always  capable  of  easy 
identification  with  those  recorded  in  Scripture,  and  occur 
ring  in  the  chronological  order  which  is  there  given.  (16) 
The  Jewish  monarch  bears  the  title  of  "  King  of  Judah," 
while  his  Israelitish  brother  is  designated  after  his  capital 
city ;  which,  though  in  the  earlier  times  not  called  Sama 
ria,  is  yet  unmistakably  indicated  under  the  term  J3eth- 
Khumri,  (17)  "  the  house  or  city  of  Omri,"  that  monarch 
having  been  the  original  founder  of  Samaria,  according  to 
Scripture.1 

The  first  great  event  in  the  kingdom  of  Judah  after  the 
separation  from  Israel,  was  the  invasion  of  Juda3a  by  Shi- 
shak,  king  of  Egypt,  in  the  fifth  year  of  Rehoboam.  Shi- 
shak  came  up  against  Jerusalem  with  "twelve  hundred 
chariots  and  threescore  thousand  horsemen,"  besides  a 
host  of  footmen  who  were  "  without  number." 2  He  "  took 
the  fenced  cities  which  pertained  to  Judah,"  and  was  pro 
ceeding  to  invest  the  capital,  when  Rehoboam  made  his 
submission,  delivered  up  the  treasures  of  the  temple,  and 
of  his  own  palace,  and  became  one  of  the  "  servants "  or 
tributaries  of  the  Egyptian  king.3  This  success  is  found  to 
have  been  commemorated  by  Shishak  on  the  outside  of 
the  great  temple  at  Karnac ;  and  here  in  a  long  list  of 
captured  towns  and  districts,  which  Shishak  boasts  of 

1  1  Kings  xvi.  24.  2  2  Chron.  xii.  3.          3  Ibid,  verse  8. 

10 


110  HISTORICAL  EVIDENCES   OF  THE  LECT.  IV. 

having  added  to  his  dominions,  occurs  the  "  Mdchi  Yuda? 
or  kingdom  of  Judah,  (18)  the  conquest  of  which  by  this 
king  is  thus  distinctly  noticed  in  the  Egyptian  records. 

About  thirty  years  later  Judaea  was  again  invaded  from 
this  quarter.  "  Zerah  the  Ethiopian,"  at  the  head  of  an 
army  of  "a  thousand  thousand"1  —  or  a  million  of  men  — 
who  were  chiefly  Ethiopians  and  Libyans,2  made  war  upon 
Asa,  and  entering  his  kingdom  at  its  south-western  angle, 
was  there  met  by  the  Jewish  monarch  and  signally  defeated 
by  him.3  In  this  case  we  cannot  expect  such  a  confirma 
tion  as  in  the  last  instance ;  for  nations  do  not  usually  put 
on  record  their  great  disasters.  It  appears,  however,  that 
at  the  time  indicated,  the  king  of  Egypt  was  an  Osor- 
kon  (19)  —  a  name  identical  in  its  root  consonants  with 
Zerach  /  and  it  appears  also  that  Egypt  continued  to 
decline  from  this  period  till  the  time  of  Psammetichus,  a 
natural  result  of  such  a  disaster  as  that  which  befell  the 
invading  host.  The  only  difficulty  which  meets  us  is  the 
representation  of  Zerah  as  an  Ethiopian  —  a  fact  not  at 
present  confirmed  by  the  monuments.  Perhaps,  though 
an  Egyptian,  he  was  regarded  as  an  Ethiopian,  because  he 
ruled  over  Ethiopia,  and  because  his  army  was  mainly  com 
posed  of  men  belonging  to  that  country.  Or  perhaps, 
though  we  have  no  positive  evidence  of  this,  he  may 
have  been  really  of  Ethiopian  extraction.  Osorkon  the 
Second,  who  is  the  natural  contemporary  of  Asa,  was  not 
descended  from  the  earlier  kings  of  the  dynasty.  He  was 
the  son-in-law  of  his  predecessor,  and  reigned  in  right  of 
his  wife.  It  is  therefore  not  at  all  impossible  that  he  may 
have  been  an  Ethiopian  by  birth,  and  have  ruled  over  both 
countries. 

In  the  succeeding  generation,  the  records  of  the  other 

1  2  Chron.  xiv.  9.  2  Ibid.  xvi.  8.  3  Ibid.  xiv.  12,  13. 


LECT.  IV.       TRUTH   OF  THE   SCRIPTURE  RECORDS.  Ill 

kingdom  present  us  with  some  points  of  contact  between 
the  Jewish  and  the  Phoenician  annals,  in  which  again  we 
have  all  the  agreement  that  is  possible.  Ahab,  king  of 
Israel,  is  represented  as  having  sought  to  strengthen  him 
self  in  the  position  which  his  father  had  usurped,  by  a  mar 
riage  with  "a  foreign  princess,  and  as  having  made  choice 
for  the  purpose  of  "Jezebel,  daughter  of  Eth-baal,  king  of 
the  Zidonians."  *  Here  again  not  only  have  we  a  genuine 
Phoenician  name,  but  we  have  the  name  of  a  king,  who  is 
proved  by  the  Tyrian  history  of  Menander  to  have  been 
seated  upon  the  throne  exactly  at  this  time.  Eithobalus, 
the  priest  of  Ashteroth  (or  Venus,)  who  by  the  murder  of 
his  predecessor,  Pheles,  became  king  of  Tyre,  mounted  the 
throne  just  fifty  years  after  the  death  of  Hiram,  the  con 
temporary  of  Solomon.  C20)  Ahab  mounted  the  throne  of 
Israel  fifteen  or  twenty  years  later,  and  was  thus  the 
younger  contemporary  of  Eithobalus,  or  Eth-baal,  who 
continued  to  reign  at  Tyre  during  a  considerable  portion 
*  of  Ahab's  reign  in  Israel.  The  only  objection  that  can  be 
taken  to  this  identity  —  which  is  generally  allowed  (21) — 
turns  upon  the  circumstance  that  Eth-baal  is  called  in 
Scripture,  not  king  of  Tyre,  but  "  king  of  the  Zidonians." 
Sidon,  it  is  probable,  although  a  dependency  of  Tyre  at  this 
time,  had  her  own  line  of  kings;  and  if  Eth-baal  was  one  of 
these,  the  coincidence  between  his  name  and  that  of  the 
reigning  Tyrian  monarch  would  be  merely  accidental,  and 
the  confirmation  here  sought  to  be  established  would  fall 
to  the  ground.  But  the  fact  seems  to  be  that  the  Jewish 
writers  use  the  term  "  Zidonians  "  in  two  senses,  one  spe 
cific,  and  the  other  generic,  —  sometimes  intending  by  it 
the  inhabitants  of  Sidon  alone,  sometimes  the  Phoenicians 
generally.  C22)  And  it  is  probably  in  this  latter  sense  that 

1  1  Kings  xvi.  31. 


112  HISTORICAL  EVIDENCES  OP  THE  LECT.  IV. 

the  title  "king  of  the  Zidonians"  is  applied  to  the  father 
of  Jezebel. 

Menander  also  related  that  during  the  reign  of  Eth-baal, 
which  (as  we  have  seen)  coincided  in  a  great  measure  with 
that  of  Ahab  in  Israel,  there  was  a  remarkable  drought, 
which  continued  in  Phoenicia  for  the  full  space  of  a  year.  C23) 
This  drought  is  fairly  connected  with  the  still  longer  one 
in  the  land  of  Israel,  which  Elijah  announced  to  Ahab,1 
and  which  led  to  the  destruction  of  the  priests  of  Baal 
upon  Mount  Carmel.2 

The  most  remarkable  feature  in  the  external  history  of 
Israel  during  the  reign  of  Ahab,  is  the  war  which  raged 
towards  its  close  between  the  Israelites  and  the  Syrians  of 
Damascus.  The  power  and  greatness  of  the  Damascene 
king,  who  bears  the  name  of  Ben-hadad,  are  very  strikingly 
depicted.  He  comes  against  Samaria  at  the  head  of  no 
fewer  than  thirty-two  subject  or  confederate  "kings,"3  with 
" horses "  and  with  " chariots," 4  and  a  "great  multitude."5 
Though  defeated  with  great  slaughter  on  his  first  attempt, 
he  is  able  to  bring  into  the  field  another  army  of  equal 
strength  in  the  ensuing  year.6  The  exact  number  of  his 
troops  is  not  mentioned,  but  it  may  be  conjectured  from 
the  losses  in  his  second  campaign,  which  are  said  to  have 
amounted  to  one  hundred  and  twenty-seven  thousand 
men.7  Even  this  enormous  slaughter  does  not  paralyze 
him:  he  continues  the  war  for  three  years  longer;  and  in 
the  third  year  fights  the  battle  in  which  Ahab  is  slain.8 
Now,  of  this  particular  struggle  we  have  no  positive  con 
firmation,  owing  to  the  almost  total  loss  of  the  ancient 
Syrian  records.  (24>  But  we  have,  in  the  cuneiform  annals 

1  1  Kings  xvii.  1.  2  Ibid.  chap,  xviii.  3  Ibid.  xx.  1. 

4  Ibid.  5  Ibid,  verse  13.  6  Ibid.  xx.  25. 

7  Ibid,  verses  28  and  29.  *  Ibid.  xxii.  1-36. 


LECT.  IV.       TRUTH   OF   THE   SCRIPTURE   RECORDS.  113 

of  an  Assyrian  king,  a  very  curious  and  valuable  confirma 
tion  of  the  power  of  Damascus  at  this  time  —  of  its  being 
under  the  rule  of  a  monarch  named  Ben-hadad,  who  was 
at  the  head  of  a  great  confederacy  of  princes,  and  who 
was  able  to  bring  into  the  field  year  after  year  vast  armies, 
with  which  he  repeatedly  engaged  the  whole  force  of 
Assyria,  We  have  accounts  of  three  campaigns  between 
the  Assyrians  on  the  one  side,  and  the  Syrians,  Hittites, 
Hamathites,  and  Pho3nicians,  united  under  the  command 
of  Ben-hadad,  upon  the  other,  (~V  in  which  the  contest  is 
maintained  with  spirit,  the  armies  being  of  a  large  size,  and 
their  composition  and  character  such  as  we  find  described 
in  Scripture.  C26) 

The  same  record  further  verifies  the  historical  accuracy 
of  the  Books  of  Kings  by  a  mention  of  Hazael  as  king  of 
Damascus  immediately  after  Ben-hadad,  (27>  and  also  by  the 
synchronism  which  it  establishes  between  this  prince  and 
Jehu,  who  is  the  first  Israelite  king  mentioned  by  name 
on  any  Inscription  hitherto  discovered.  Jehu  appears  by 
the  monument  in  question  to  have  submitted  himself  to 
the  great  Assyrian  conqueror ;  (28)  and  it  may  be  suspected 
that  from  this  date  both  the  Jewish  and  the  Israelitish 
kings  held  their  crowns  as  fiefs  dependent  on  the  will 
of  the  Assyrian  monarch,  with  whom  it  formally  lay  to 
"confirm"  each  new  prince  "in  his  kingdom."1 

A  break  now  occurs  in  the  series  of  profane  notices, 
which  have  extended,  without  the  omission  of  a  genera 
tion,  from  the  time  of  David  to  that  of  Jehu.  During  the 
century  which  follows  on  the  death  of  that  monarch  we 
are  able  to  adduce  from  profane  sources  no  more  than  one 
or  two  doubtful  illustrations  of  the  Sacred  Narrative. 
Here,  however,  it  is  to  be  remarked,  that  the  absence  of 

1  2  Kings  xiv.  5  ;  xv.  19. 
10* 


114  HISTORICAL   EVIDENCES   OF  THE  LECT.  IV. 

profane  confirmation  is  coincident  with,  and  must  fairly  be 
regarded  as  resulting  from,  a  want  of  sufficient  materials. 
There  is  a  great  dearth  of  copious  Assyrian  inscriptions 
from  the  time  of  the  monarch  who  made  Jehu  tributary  to 
that  of  the  Tiglath-Pileser  of  Scripture,  t29)  For  this  time 
too  the  Tyrian  records  are  an  absolute  blank,  (3°)  while  the 
Egyptian  are  but  little  better ;  and  moreover  there  seems 
to  have  been  no  political  contact  between  these  countries 
and  Palestine  during  the  period  in  question.  We  cannot 
therefore  be  surprised  at  the  deficiency  here  noted;  nor 
would  it  be  right  to  view  it  as  having  the  slightest  ten 
dency  to  weaken  the  force  of  our  previous  reasoning. 

The  Hebrew  annals  touch  no  foreign  country,  of  which 
we  have  any  records  at  all,  from  the  time  of  Jehu  to  that 
of  Menahem.  In  the  reign  of  this  latter  prince  occurs 
the  first  direct  mention  of  Assyria  as  a  power  actively 
interfering  in  Palestine,  and  claiming  and  exercising 
political  influence.  We  are  told  that  in  the  reign  of 
Menahem,  "Pul,  the  king  of  Assyria,  came  up  against 
the  land ;  and  Menahem  gave  Pul  a  thousand  talents  of 
silver,  that  his  hand  might  be  with  him,  to  confirm  the 
kingdom  in  his  hand."  l  There  is  some  difficulty  in  iden 
tifying  the  Assyrian  monarch  here  mentioned,  who  not 
only  took  this  large  tribute,  but  (as  appears  from  Chroni 
cles)  2  led  a  portion  of  the  nation  into  captivity.  In  the 
Hebrew  Scriptures  he  appears  as  Pul,  or  rather  Phul ;  and 
this  is  also  the  form  of  the  name  which  the  Armenian 
Eusebius  declares  to  have  been  used  by  Polyhistor, (31)  who 
followed  Berosus ;  but  in  the  Septuagint  he  is  called  Pha- 
loch,  or  Phalos,  C33)  a  form  of  which  the  Hebrew  word 
seems  to  be  an  abbreviation.  The  Assyrian  records  of  the 
time  present  us  with  no  name  very  close  to  this ;  but  there 

1  2  Kings  xv,  19.  3  1  Chron.  v.  26. 


LECT.  IV.       TRUTH    OF   THE   SCRIPTURE   RECORDS.  115 

is  one  which  has  been  read  variously,  as  Phal-lukha,  Vul- 
lukha,  and  Iva-lush,  wherein  it  is  not  improbable  that  we 
may  have  the  actual  appellation  of  the  Biblical  Phul,  or  Pha- 
loch.  The  annals  of  this  monarch  are  scanty ;  but  in  the 
most  important  record  which  we  possess  of  his  reign,  there 
is  a  notice  of  his  having  taken  tribute  from  Beth-Khumri, 
or  Samaria,  as  well  as  from  Tyre,  Sidon,  Damascus,  Idu- 
maea,  and  Philistia.  (33)  Neither  the  name  of  the  Israelitish 
king,  nor  the  amount  of  his  tribute,  is  mentioned  in  the 
Assyrian  record ;  but  the  amount  of  the  latter,  which  may 
to  many  appear  excessive,  receives  illustration,  and  a  cer 
tain  degree  of  confirmation,  from  a  fact  which  happens  to 
be  recorded  on  the  monument  —  namely,  that  the  Assyrian 
monarch  took  at  this  time  from  the  king  of  Damascus  a 
tribute  considerably  greater  than  that  which,  according  to 
the  author  of  Kings,  he  now  exacted  from  Menahem. 
From  Menahem  he  received  one  thousand  talents  of  silver ; 
but  from  the  Damascene  king  the  tribute  taken  was 
twenty-three  hundred  of  such  talents,  together  with  three 
thousand  talents  of  copper,  forty  of  gold,  and  five  thousand 
of  some  other  metal.  (34) 

The  expedition  of  Pul  against  Menahem  is  followed  by  a 
series  of  attacks  on  the  independence  of  the  two  kingdoms, 
which  cause  the  sacred  history  to  be  very  closely  con 
nected,  for  the  space  of  about  a  century,  with  the  annals  of 
Assyria.  The  successors  of  Pul  are  presented  to  us  by  the 
Biblical  writers,  apparently  in  a  continuous  and  uninter 
rupted  line — Tiglath-Pileser,  Shalmaneser,  Sargon,  Sen 
nacherib,  and  Esar-haddon,  all  of  them  carrying  their  arms 
into  Palestine,  and  playing  an  important  part  in  the  history 
of  the  favored  race.  It  happens  most  fortunately  (may  we 
not  say,  providentially  ?)  that  records  of  all  these  monarchs 
—the  greatest  which  Assyria  produced — have  been  recov- 


116  HISTORICAL  EVIDENCES   OF  THE  LECT.  IV. 

ered ;  and  these  in  some  cases  are  sufficiently  full  to 
exhibit  a  close  agreement  with  the  sacred  narrative,  while 
throughout  they  harmonize  with  the  tenor  of  that  narra 
tive,  only  in  one  or  two  cases  so  differing  from  the  Hebrew 
text  as  to  cause  any  difficulty.  I  shall  proceed  to  exhibit 
this  agreement  with  the  brevity  which  my  limits  necessi 
tate,  before  noticing  the  confirmation  which  this  portion  of 
the  history  derives  also  from  the  Egyptian  and  Babylonian 
records. 

The  chief  events  related  of  Tiglath-Pileser  in  Scripture 
are  his  two  invasions  of  Israel  —  once  when  he  "took  Ijon, 
and  Abel-beth-maachah,  and  Janoah,  and  Kedesh,  and 
Hazor,  and  Gilead,  and  Galilee,  and  all  the  land  of  Xaph- 
tali,  and  carried  them  captive  to  Assyria;"1  and  again, 
when  he  came  at  the  invitation  of  Ahaz,  and  not  only  chas 
tised  Pekah,  but  "took  Damascus,  and  slew  Rezin."2  Of 
the  first  of  these  two  campaigns  we  have  no  profane  con 
firmation  ;  but  some  account  of  the  second  is  given  in  an 
Assyrian  fragment,  where  Tiglath-Pileser  speaks  of  his 
defeating  Rezin,  and  capturing  Damascus,  and  also  of  his 
taking  tribute  from  the  king  of  Samaria,  The  monarch 
indeed  from  whom  he  takes  the  tribute  is  called  Menahem, 
instead  of  Pekah;  and  this  constitutes  a  discrepancy  —  the 
first  that  we  have  found  —  between  the  Assyrian  and  the 
Hebrew  records :  but  the  probability  is  that  Pekah  is 
intended,  and  that  the  official  who  composed,  or  the  work 
man  who  engraved,  the  Assyrian  document  made  a  mis 
take  in  the  name.  (35> 

Tiglath-Pileser  is  also  stated  in  Scripture  to  have  been 
visited  at  Damascus  by  the  Jewish  king  Ahaz;  and  the 
result  of  this  visit  was  that  Ahaz  set  up  a  new  altar  in  the 
temple  at  Jerusalem,  according  to  the  pattern  of  an  altar 

1  2  Kings  xv.  29.  .  2  Ibid.  xvi.  7-9. 


LECT.  IV.      TRUTH   OF  THE   SCRIPTURE  RECORDS.  117 

which  he  had  seen  at  Damascus.1  It  has  been  generally 
supposed  that  this  altar  was  Syrian  ;  (3G)  and  its  establish 
ment  has  been  connected  with  the  passage  in  Chronicles, 
where  Ahaz  is  said  to  have  "sacrificed  to  the  gods  of 
Damascus,  which  smote  him ; " 2  but  few  things  can  be 
more  improbable  than  the  adoption  of  the  gods  of  a  foreign 
nation  at  the  moment  when  they  had  been  proved  powerless. 
The  strange  altar  of  Ahaz  was  in  all  probability  not  Syrian, 
but  Assyrian ;  and  its  erection  was  in  accordance  with  an 
Assyrian  custom,  of  which  the  Inscriptions  afford  abundant 
evidence  —  the  custom  of  requiring  from  the  subject  na 
tions  some  formal  acknowledgment  of  the  gods  and  wor 
ship  of  the  sovereign  country.  (37) 

The  successor  of  Tiglath-Pileser  seems  to  have  been 
Shalmaneser  —  a  king,  whose  military  exploits  in  these 
regions  were  celebrated  by  Menander  in  his  history  of 
Tyre,  t38)  He  appears,  from  the  narrative  in  Kings,  to 
have  come  up  twice  against  Hoshea,  the  last  king  of  Israel,3 
—  on  the  first  occasion  merely  enforcing  the  tribute  which 
was  regarded  as  due,  but  on  the  second  proceeding  to  ex 
tremities,  in  order  to  punish  Hoshea  for  contracting  an 
alliance  with  Egypt,  laying  siege  to  Samaria,  and  continu 
ing  to  prosecute  the  siege  for  the  space  of  three  years.  The 
records  of  Shalmaneser  have  been  so  mutilated  by  his  suc 
cessors,  that  they  furnish  only  a  very  slight  confirmation  of 
this  history.  The  name  of  Hoshea,  however,  king  of  Sama 
ria,  is  found  in  an  inscription,  which  has  been  with  reason 
assigned  to  Shalmaneser ;  (39>  and  though  the  capture  of 
Samaria  is  claimed  by  his  successor,  Sargon,  as  an  exploit 
of  his  own  in  his  first  year,  (4°)  yet  this  very  claim  confirms 
the  Scriptural  account  of  Shalmaneser's  commencing  the 

1  2  Kings  xvi.  10-16.  2  2  Chron.  xxviii.  23. 

3  2  Kings  xvii.  3  and  o. 


118  HISTORICAL   EVIDENCES   OF   THE  LECT.  IV. 

siege,  which  began  three  years  before  the  capture;1  and  it 
is  easily  brought  into  harmony  with  the  Scriptural  account 
of  the  actual  capture,  either  by  supposing  that  Sargon 
claimed  the  success  as  falling  into  his  own  reign,  (which 
had  then  begun  at  Xineveh,)  though  Shalmaneser  was  the 
real  captor ;  or  by  regarding  (as  we  are  entitled  to  do)  the 
king  of  Assyria,  who  is  said  to  have  taken  Samaria  in  the 
Book  of  Kings,  as  a  distinct  person  from  the  king  who 
commenced  the  siege.  (41) 

Of  Shalmaneser's  successor,  Sargon,  Scripture  contains 
but  one  clear  historic  notice.  In  the  twentieth  chapter  of 
Isaiah,  we  are  told  that  "in  the  year  that  Tartan  came  unto 
Ashdod,  (when  Sargon,  the  king  of  Assyria,  sent  him,)  and 
fought  against  Ashdod,  and  took  it,"2  certain  directions 
were  given  by  the  Lord  to  the  prophet.  It  was  formerly 
supposed  that  Sargon  was  another  name  for  one  of  the 
Assyrian  monarchs  mentioned  in  the  Book  of  Kings ;  (42)  but 
since  the  discovery  that  the  king  of  Assyria,  who  built  the 
great  palace  at  Khorsabad,  actually  bore  this  appellation, 
which  continued  to  attach  to  its  ruins  until  the  Arab  con 
quest,  (43>  it  has  been  generally  admitted  that  we  have  in 
Isaiah  a  reference  to  an  Assyrian  ruler  distinct  from  all 
those  mentioned  in  Kings,  and  identical  with  the  Khorsa 
bad  monarch,  who  was  the  father  of  Sennacherib.  'Now  of 
this  monarch  we  find  it  related  in  his  annals  that  he  made 
war  in  Southern  Syria,  and  took  AshdocK^  Thus  the 
sole  fact  which  Scripture  distinctly  assigns  to  the  reign  of 
Sargon  is  confirmed  by  the  native  records ;  which  likewise 
illustrate  the  two  or  three  other  facts  probably  intended  to 
be  assigned  to  him  by  the  sacred  writers.  Isaiah  appar 
ently  means  Sargon  in  the  fourth  verse  of  his  twentieth 
chapter,  when  he  prophesies  that  "  the  king  of  Assyria  shall 

1  2  Kings  xvii.  3,  5,  and  xviii.  9,  10.  *  Isaiah  xx.  1. 


LECT.  rVr.       TRUTH   OF   THE   SCRIPTURE   RECORDS.  119 

lead  away  the  Egyptians  prisoners,  and  the  Ethiopians  cap 
tives,  young  and  old,  naked  and  barefoot,  even  with  their 
buttocks  uncovered,  to  the  shame  of  Egypt."  If  this  be 
allowed,  we  obtain  a  second  illustration  of  Sargon's  reign 
from  the  monuments ;  which  represent  him  as  warring  with 
Egypt,  and  forcing  the  Pharaoh  of  the  time  to  become  his. 
tributary,  and  which  also  show  that  Egypt  was  at  this  time 
in  just  that  close  connection  with  Ethiopia  (45>  which  the 
prophet's  expressions  indicate.1  Again,  if  we  may  presume 
that  Sargon  is  intended  by  the  king  of  Assyria  who  took 
Samaria,2  and  earned  the  Israelites  away  captive;3  then 
there  is  derivable  from  the  monuments  a  very  curious  illus 
tration  of  the  statement  of  Scripture,  that  the  monarch, 
who  did  this,  placed  his  captives,'  or  .at  least  a  portion  of 
them,  "  in  the  cities  of  the  Medes." 4  For  Sargon  seems  to 
have  been  the  first  Assyrian  monarch  who  conquered  Me 
dia  ;  and  he  expressly  relates  that,  in  order  to  complete  its 
subjection,  he  founded  there  a  number  of  cities,  which  he 
planted  with  colonists  from  other  portions  of  his  domin 
ions.  C46> 

The  Assyrian  monarch  who  appears  in  Scripture  as  most 
probably  the  successor  of  Sargon  is  Sennacherib,  whom  the 
monuments  show  to  have  been  his  son.  Two  expeditions 
of  this  prince  against  Hezekiah  are  related ;  and  each  of 
them  receives  a  very  striking  confirmation  from  a  profane 
source.  The  sacred  writers  tell  us  that  on  the  first  occa 
sion,  Hezekiah  having  thrown  off  the  allegiance5  which  the 
kings  of  Judah  appear  to  have  paid  to  Assyria  at  least  from 
the  time  of  Ahaz'  message  to  Tiglath-Pileser,6  "  Sennache 
rib,  king  of  Assyria,  came  up  against  all  the  fenced  cities  of 
Judah,  and  took  them :  and  Hezekiah,  king  of  Judah,  sent 

1  Isaiah  xx.  3  and  4.         2  2  Kin^s  xvii.  6.  3  Ibid,  xviii.  11. 

4  Ibid.  6  Ibid>  xvii>  7.  e  Ibid.  xvi.  7. 


120  HISTORICAL    EVIDENCES    OF   THE  LECT.  IV. 

to  the  king  of  Assyria  to  Lachish,  saying,  'I  have  offended; 
.return  from  me :  that  which  thou  puttest  upon  me,  I  will 
bear : '  and  the  king  of  Assyria  appointed  unto  Hezekiah, 
king  of  Judah,  three  hundred  talents  of  silver  and  thirty 
talents  of  gold."1  The  annals  of  Sennacherib  contain  a  full 
account  of  this  campaign.  "And  because  Hezekiah,  king 
of  Judah,"  says  Sennacherib,  "would  not  submit  to  my  yoke, 
I  came  up  against  him,  and  by  force  of  arms  and  by  the 
might  of  my  power  I  took  forty-six  of  his  strong  fenced 
cities;  and  of  the  smaller  towns  which  were  scattered 
about,  I  took  and  plundered  a  countless  number.  And 
from  these  places  I  captured  and  carried  off  as  spoil  two 
hundred  thousand  one  hundred  and  fifty  people,  old  and 
young,  male  and  female,  together  with  horses  and  mares, 
asses  and  camels,  oxen  and  .sheep,  a  countless  multitude. 
And  Hezekiah  himself  I  shut  up  in  Jerusalem,  his  capital 
city,  like  a  bird  in  a  cage,  building  towers  round  the  city 
to  hem  him  in,  and  raising  banks  of  earth  against  the  gates, 
so  as  to  prevent  escape.  .  .  .  Then  upon  this  Hezekiah  there 
fell  the  fear  of  the  power  of  my  arms,  and  he  sent  out  to 
me  the  chiefs  and  the  elders  of  Jerusalem  witli  thirty  tal 
ents  of  gold,  and  eight  hundred  talents  of  silver,  and  divers 
treasures,  a  rich  and  immense  booty.  .  .  .  All  these  things 
were  brought  to  me  at  Nineveh,  the  seat  of  my  govern 
ment,  Hezekiah  having  sent  them  by  way  of  tribute,  and  as 
a  token  of  his  submission  to  my  power."  (47>  It  is  needless  to 
particularize  the  points  of  agreement  between  these  narra 
tives.  The  only  discrepancy  is  in  the  amount  of  the  silver 
which  Sennacherib  received;  and  here  we  may  easily  con 
ceive,  either  that  the  Assyrian  king  has  exaggerated,  or 
that  he  has  counted  in  a  portion  of  the  spoil,  while  the 

»2  Kings  xviii.  13,  14.      Compare  Isaiah  xxxvi.  .1,  and  2  Chron. 
xxxii.  1-8. 


LECT.  IV.   TRUTH  OF  THE  SCRIPTURE  RECORDS.       121 

sacred  writer  has  merely  mentioned  the  sum  agreed  to  be 
paid  as  tribute,  t48) 

The  second  expedition  of  Sennacherib  into  Syria  seems 
to  have  followed  very  shortly  upon  the  first.  In  neither 
case  was  Judaea  the  sole,  or  even  the  main  object  of  attack. 
The  real  purpose  of  both  expeditions  was  to  weaken  Egypt ; 
and  it  was  by  his  Egyptian  leanings  that  Hezekiah  had 
provoked  the  anger  of  his  suzerain.1  No  collision  appears 
to  have  taken  place  on  this  second  occasion  between  the 
Assyrians  and  the  Jews.  Hezekiah  was  threatened;  but 
before  the  threats  could  be  put  in  execution,  that  miracu 
lous  destruction  of  the  Assyrian  host  was  effected  which 
forms  so  striking  a  feature  of  this  portion  of  the  sacred  nar 
rative.  "  The  angel  of  the  Lord  went  out,  and  smote  in 
the  camp  of  the  Assyrians"  (which  was  at  Libnah  on  the 
borders  of  Egypt)  "a  hundred  fourscore  and  five  thou 
sand  ;  and  when  they  arose  early  in  the  morning,  they 
were  all  dead  corpses."2  It  has  been  generally  seen  and 
confessed,  that  the  marvellous  account  which  Herodotus 
gives  of  the  discomfiture  of  Sennacherib  by  Seth6s<49>  is 
the  Egyptian  version  of  this  event,  which  was  (naturally 
enough)  ascribed  by  that  people  to  the  interposition  of  its 
own  divinities. 

The  murder  of  Sennacherib  by  two  of  his  sons,3  though 
not  mentioned  in  the  Assyrian  Inscriptions,  (which  have 
never  been  found  to  record  the  death  of  a  king,)  appears  to 
have  been  noticed  by  Berosus ;  from  whom  were  derived  in 
all  probability  the  brief  allusions  to  the  event  which  are 
met  with  in  the  fragments  of  Alexander  Polyhistor  and 
Abydenus.  (49>  The  escape  of  the  murderers  into  Armenia4 
is  in  harmony  with  what  is  known  of  the  condition  of  that 

1  2  Kings  xviii.  21  and  24.  2  Ibid.  xix.  35. 

3  Ibid,  verse  37.  4  Ibid. 

11 


122  HISTORICAL  EVIDENCES   OP  THE  LECT.  IV. 

country  at  the  time ;  for  it  appears  as  an  independent  state 
generally  hostile  to  the  Assyrian  monarchs,  in  the  cunei 
form  records  of  this  period ;  (5°)  and  it  is  further  perhaps 
worthy  of  remark,  that  the  Armenian  traditions  spoke  dis 
tinctly  of  the  reception  of  the  two  refugees,  and  of  the 
tracts  respectively  assigned  to  them.  (51) 

Esarhaddon  is  distinctly  stated  in  Scripture  to  have  been 
the  son  and  successor  of  Sennacherib.1  As  usual,  the  mon 
uments  are  in  complete  accordance.  (52>  Esarhaddon  every 
where  calls  himself  the  son  of  Sennacherib ;  and  there  is  no 
appearance  in  the  native  records  of  any  king  having  inter 
vened  between  the  two.  t53)  The  events  belonging  to  the 
reign  of  Esarhaddon,  which  are  introduced  by  the  sacred 
writers  into  their  narrative,  are  but  few.  As  his  father  was 
contemporary  with  Hezekiah,  we  naturally  regard  him  as 
falling  into  the  time  of  Manasseh;  and  it  has  therefore 
been  generally  felt  that  he  should  be  the  king  of  Assyria, 
whose  captains  "took  Manasseh  among  the  thorns,  jand 
bound  him  with  fetters,  and  carried  him  to  Babylon?* 
The  monuments  confirm  the  synchronism  which  Scripture 
implies,  by  distinctly  mentioning  "Manasseh,  king  of 
Judah,"  among  the  tributaries  of  Esarhaddon ;  (54)  and 
though  no  direct  confirmation  has  as  yet  been  found  of  the 
captivity  and  restoration  of  the  Jewish  monarch,  yet  the 
narrative  contains  an  incidental  allusion  which  is  in  very 
remarkable  harmony  with  the  native  records.  One  is 
greatly  surprised  at  first  hearing  that  the  generals  of  an 
Assyrian  king,  on  capturing  a  rebel,  earned  him  to  Baby 
lon  instead  of  Nineveh  —  one  is  almost  inclined  to  suspect 
a  mistake.  'What  has  a  king  of  Assyria  to  do  with  Baby 
lon  ? '  one  naturally  asks.  The  reply  is,  that  Esarhaddon, 

1  2  Kings  xix.  37.     Compare  Isaiah  xxxvii.  38. 

2  2  Chron.  xxxiii.  11. 


LECT.  IV.      TRUTH  OP  THE  SCRIPTURE  RECORDS.  123 

and  he  only  of  all  the  Assyrian  kings,  actually  was  king 
of  Babylon  —  that  he  built  a  palace,  and  occasionally 
held  his  court  there  (55^  —  and  that  consequently  a  captive 
was  as  likely  to  be  brought  to  him  at  that  city  as  at  the 
metropolis  of  Assyria  Proper.  Had  the  narrative  fallen 
under  the  reign  of  any  other  Assyrian  monarch,  this  ex 
planation  could  not  have  been  given;  and  the  difficulty 
would  have  been  considerable.  Occurring  where  it  does,  it 
furnishes  no  difficulty  at  all,  but  is  one  of  those  small  points 
of  incidental  agreement  which  are  more  satisfactory  to  a 
candid  mind  than  even  a  very  large  amount  of  harmony  in 
the  main  narrative. 

With  Esarhaddon  the  notices  of  Assyria  in  the  sacred 
history  come  to  an  end.  Assyria  herself  shortly  afterwards 
disappears ;  (56)  and  her  place  is  taken  by  Babylon,  which 
now  for  the  first  time  becomes  a  great  conquering  power. 
This  transfer  of  empire  is  abundantly  confirmed  by  profane 
authorities ;  (57>  but,  as  the  historical  character  of  the  Bibli 
cal  narrative  in  this  respect  has  always  been  allowed,  it  is 
unnecessary  in  this  place  to  dwell  upon  it.  I  proceed  to 
consider  the  agreement  between  the  sacred  narrative  and 
the  native  Egyptian  and  Babylonian  records  during  the 
later  times  of  the  Hebrew  monarchy. 

Egyptian  and  Jewish  history  touch  at  four  points  during 
this  period.  Hoshea,  the  contemporary  of  Shalmaneser, 
makes  a  treaty  with  So,  king  of  Egypt,1  shortly  before  the 
capture  of  Samaria,  or  about  the  year  B.  C.  725.  Sennache 
rib,  not  very  long  afterwards,  on  attacking  the  depend 
encies  of  Egypt,  learns  that  Tirhakah,  king  of  the  Ethio 
pians,  is  gathering  together  an  army  to  oppose  him.2  Nearly 
a  century  later,  Pharaoh-Xecho  invades  Juda3a,  defeats 
and  kills  the  Jewish  king  Josiah,  presses  forward  to  the 

1  2  Kings  xvii.  4.  2  Ibid.  xix.  9. 


124  HISTORICAL  EVIDENCES  OF  THE  LECT.  IV. 

Euphrates,  takes  Carcliemish  and  Jerusalem,  leads  Jehoa- 
haz  the  son  of  Josiah  into  captivity,  and  establishes  his 
dominion  over  the  whole  of  Syria ;  but  is  shortly  afterwards 
defeated  by  Nebuchadnezzar,  king  of  Babylon,  and  dispos 
sessed  of  all  his  conquests.1  Finally,  about  twenty  years 
after  this,  Pharaoh-Hophra  is  spoken  of  as  encouraging  the 
Jews  to  resist  Nebuchadnezzar,  and  threatened  with  the 
wrath  of  that  monarch,  into  whose  hands  it  is  said  he  will 
be  delivered.2 

Here,  then,  within  about  one  hundred  and  forty  years, 
we  have  the  names  of  four  kings  of  Egypt,  one  of  whom  is 
also  the  sovereign  of  Cush  or  Ethiopia.  Let  us  see  whether 
the  Egyptian  annals  recognize  the  monarchs  thus  brought 
under  our  notice. 

Neither  Manetho  nor  the  monuments  present  us  with 
any  name  which  at  all  closely  resembles  the  word  "  So." 
If,  however,  we  look  to  the  Hebrew  literation  of  that  name, 
we  shall  find  that  the  word  is  written  with  three  letters, 
which  may  be  (and  probably  are)  all  consonants.  They 
may  be  read  as  S,  Y,  II ;  and  the  name  of  the  monarch 
thus  designated  may  most  properly  be  regarded  as  Se- 
veh.(^  Now  a  king  of  the  name  of  Sevech,  or  Sevechus, 
appears  in  the  proper  place  in  Manetho's  lists;  and  the 
monuments  show  that  two  monarchs,  (who  seem  to  have 
been  a  father  and  a  son,)  Shebek  I.  and  Shcbek  II.,  ruled 
Egypt  about  this  period.  (5°)  The  former  of  the  two  is 
familiar  to  us  under  the  name  (which  Herodotus  assigns  to 
him)  of  Sabaco;(6°)  and  it  is  probably  this  prince  of  whom 
the  Hebrew  writer  speaks.  The  fact  that  he  came  into 
contact  with  Assyria  is  confirmed  by  the  discovery  of  his 
seal  at  Koyunjik ;  it  had  probably  been  affixed  to  a  treaty 

1  2  Kings  xxiii.  29-35 ;  xxiv.  7.     Compare  2  Chron.  xxxv.  20. 

2  Jerem.  xliv.  30  ;  xlvi.  13-26. 


LECT.  IV.       TRUTH   OF  THE   SCRIPTURE  RECORDS.  125 

which,  in  consequence  of  his  machinations,  he  had  been 
forced  to  make  with  the  triumphant  Assyrian  monarch.  (6l) 

Tirhakah,  who  appears  as  king  of  the  Ethiopians,  yet  at 
the  same  time  as  protector  of  Egypt,  in  the  second  Book  of 
Kings,  is  manifestly  the  Tarcus  or  Taracus  of  Manetho,  (G2) 
the  Tearchon  of  Strabo,  t63)  and  the  Tehrak  of  the  monu 
ments.  (64>  He  succeeded  the  second  Shebek,  and  is  proved 
by  his  remains  to  have  been  king  of  both  countries,  but  to 
have  held  his  court  in  Ethiopia. 

In  the  Pharaoh-Necho  of  Kings  and  Jeremiah,1  it  is  im 
possible  not  to  recognize  the  famous  Egyptian  monarch 
whom  Manetho  calls  Nechao,  (to>  Herodotus  Neco,  (66>  and 
the  monuments  N~eku,  (67)  the  son  and  successor  of  the  first 
Psammetichus.  The'  invasion  of  Syria  by  this  prince,  and 
his  defeat  of  the  Syrians  in  a  great  battle,  are  attested  by 
Herodotus;  who  only  commits  a  slight  and  very  venial 
error,  when  he  makes  Magdolum  instead  of  Megiddo  the 
scene  of  the  encounter.  (68)  It  has  been  usual  to  regard 

o 

Herodotus  as  also  confirming  the  capture  of  Jerusalem  by 
Necho;(69)  but  too  much  uncertainty  attaches  to  the  pre 
sumed  identity  of  Cadytis  with  the  Jewish  capital,  to  make 
it  wise  that  much  stress  should  be  laid  on  this  imagined 
agreement.  (7°)  We  may  with  more  confidence  appeal  for 
a  confirmation  of  this  fact,  and  of  the  captivity  of  Jehoahaz, 
to  the  fragments  of  Manetho,  who  is  reported  both  by  Afri- 
canus  and  by  Eusebius  to  have  mentioned  these  Egyptian 
successes.  <71) 

Not  less  certain  and  unmistakable  is  the  identity  of  the 
Scriptural  Pharaoh-IIophra  with  Manetho's  Uaphris,  Herod- 
otus's  Apries,  and  the  monumental  Haifra-het  or  Hai- 
fra.  (72)  Egyptian  chronology  makes  this  prince  contempo 
rary  with  Nebuchadnezzar  ;(73>  and  if  we  may  trust  the 

1  Jerem.  xlvi.  2-12* 
11* 


126  HISTORICAL   EVIDENCES   OF  THE  LECT.  IY, 

abstracts  whicli  Eusebius  and  Africanus  profess  to  give  of 
Manetho,  that  writer  mentioned  the  flight  of  the  Jews  into 
Egypt  upon  the  destruction  of  their  city,  and  their  recep 
tion  by  Uaphris  or  Hophra,(74)  The  miserable  end  of 
Hophra,  predicted  by  Jeremiah,  is  related  from  Egyptian 
traditions  by  Herodotus ;  and  though  it  may  be  doubted 
whether  his  account  of  the  occurrence  is  in  its  minuter  cir 
cumstances  altogether  correct/75)  yet  at  any  rate  the  facts 
of  the  deposition  and  execution  of  the  Egyptian  king  must 
be  accepted  on  his  testimony ;  and  these  are  the  facts  which 
especially  illustrate  the  statements  of  Scripture. 

Babylonian  and  Jewish  history  come  into  contact  only 
at  two  points  in  the  period  under  consideration.  We  are 
told  that  in  the  reign  of  Hezekiah,  Merodach-Buladan,  king 
of  Babylon,  sent  letters  and  a  present  to  that  prince,  partly 
because  he  had  heard  that  he  was  sick,1  partly  because  he 
wished  to  inquire  concerning  the  wonder  that  had  been 
done  in  the  land,2  when  the  shadow  went  back  ten  degrees 
on  the  dial  of  Ahaz.  The  name  of  Merodach-Baladan  does 
not  at  first  sight  appear  to  be  contained  in  the  authentic 
list  of  Babylonian  kings  preserved  to  us  in  Ptolemy.  But 
it  is  probable  that  the  king  in  question  does  really  occur  in 
that  list  under  the  appellation  of  Mardoc-empad,  or  Mardoc- 
empal ;  (76)  and  there  is  abundant  evidence  from  the  inscrip 
tions,  not  only  of  the  existence  of  such  a  monarch,  but  of 
his  having  been  contemporary  with  the  Jewish  king  in 
whose  reign  his  embassy  is  placed.  (7?)  The  fact  of  the  em 
bassy  —  which  seems  improbable  if  we  only  know  the  gen 
eral  condition  of  Babylon  at  the  period  to  have  been  one  of 
subjection  to  Assyria — becomes  highly  probable  when  we 
learn  —  both  from  Berosus(78>  and  the  monuments  <79)  — 
that  there  was  a  fierce  and  bitter  hostility  between  Mero- 
1  2  Kings  xx.  12.  2  2  Chron.  xxxii.  31. 


LECT.  IV.   TRUTH  OP  THE  SCRIPTURE  RECORDS.       127 

dach-Baladan  and  the  Assyrian  monarchs,  from  whose  op 
pressive  yoke  he  more  than  once  freed  his  country.  The 
ostensible  motive  of  the  embassy  —  to  inquire  about  an 
astronomical  marvel  —  is  also  highly  probable  in  the  case  of 
a  country  where  astronomy  held  so  high  a  rank,  where  the 
temples  were  observatories,  and  the  religion  was  to  a  great 
extent  astral.  (8°) 

About  a  century  later,  Babylon  is  found  in  the  Scripture 
history  to  have  succeeded  to  the  position  and  influence  of 
Assyria  over  Palestine,  and  we  have  a  brief  relation,  in 
Jeremiah,  Ezekiel,  and  Kings,  of  several  campaigns  con 
ducted  by  Nebuchadnezzar  in  these  regions.  Profane  ac 
counts  are  in  accordance.  The  reconquest  of  Syria  and 
Palestine  from  Necho  by  Nebuchadnezzar,  which  is  men 
tioned  by  Jeremiah,1  and  glanced  at  in  Kings,2  was  related 
at  length  by  Berosus  ;(81>  his  prolonged  siege  of  Tyre,  which 
is  spoken  of  by  Ezekiel,3  was  attested  by  the  Tyrian  his 
torians,  who  said  that  it  lasted  thirteen  years ;  (82>  while  his 
destruction  of  the  temple  at  Jerusalem,  and  his  deportation 
of  vast  bodies  of  Jewish  captives,  were  noticed  by  the  na 
tive  historian,  who  said  that  the  captives  were  settled  in 
convenient  places  in  Babylonia.  <83>  As  the  rest  of  the  acts 
of  Nebuchadnezzar  fall  into  our  next  period,  the  present 
review  here  comes  to  an  end,  and  we  may  now  close  this 
portion  of  the  inquiry  with  a  brief  summary  of  the  evidence 
adduced  in  the  course  of  it. 

The  period  with  which  we  have  been  dealing  is  one  of 
comparative  light.  We  possess,  it  is  true,  no  continuous 
history  of  it  besides  that  which  the  Sacred  Volume  fur 
nishes  ;  but  we  have  abstracts  of  the  writings  of  Berosus 
and  Manetho,  which  contained  the  annals  of  Egypt  and  of 
Babylon  during  the  space ;  we  have  considerable  fragments 

1  Jerem.  xlvi.  1-12.  2  2  Kings  xxiv.  7.  3  Ezek.  xxix.  18. 


128  HISTORICAL  EVIDENCES  OP  THE          LECT.  IV. 

of  the  Tynan  histories  of  the  time ;  and  in  the  latter  por 
tion  of  it  we  begin  to  enjoy  the  advantage  of  those  investi 
gations  which  the  inquisitive  Greeks  pushed  into  the  anti 
quities  of  all  the  nations  wherewith  they  became  acquainted. 
Above  all  we  possess  the  contemporary  records  —  often  in 
a  very  copious  form  —  of  all  the  great  Assyrian  monarchs 
whose  reigns  fell  within  the  period  in  question,  while  we 
derive  likewise  a  certain  amount  of  information  from  the 
monuments  of  Egypt.  All  these  sources  have  been  exam 
ined,  and  all  have  combined  to  confirm  and  illustrate  the 
Scriptural  narrative  at  almost  every  point  where  it  was 
possible  —  or  at  any  rate  where  it  was  probable — that  they 
would  have  a  bearing  upon  it.  The  result  is  a  general  con 
firmation  of  the  entire  body  of  leading  facts  —  minute  con 
firmation  occasionally  —  and  a  complete  absence  of  any 
thing  that  can  be  reasonably  viewed  as  serious  discrepancy. 
A  few  difficulties  —  chiefly  chronological (84) — meet  us;  but 
they  are  fewer  in  proportion  than  are  found  in  the  profane 
history  of  almost  any  remote  period ;  and  the  faith  must  be 
weak  indeed  to  which  they  prove  a  stumbling-block.  Gen 
erally,  throughout  this  whole  period,  there  is  that  "  admira 
ble  agreement,"  which  Niebuhr  observes  upon  towards  its 
close,  (85)  between  the  profane  records  and  the  accounts  of 
Scripture.  We  have  not  for  the  most  part  by  any  labored 
efforts  to  harmonize  the  two  —  their  accord  is  patent  and 
striking ;  and  is  sufficiently  exhibited  by  a  mere  juxtaposi 
tion  of  passages.  The  monarchs  themselves,  the  order  of 
their  names,  their  relationship  where  it  is  indicated",  their 
actions  so  far  as  they  come  under  notice,  are  the  same  in 
both  the  Jewish  and  the  native  histories;  which  present 
likewise,  here  as  elsewhere,  numerous  points  of  agreement, 
connected  with  the  geography,  religion,  and  customs  of  the 
various  nations.  (8G>  As  discovery  proceeds,  these  points  of 


LECT.  IV.       TRUTH   OF  THE  SCRIPTURE  RECORDS.  129 

agreement  are  multiplied ;  obscurities  clear  up ;  difficulties 
are  solved ;  doubts  vanish.  It  is  only  where  profane  rec 
ords  are  wanting  or  scanty,  that  the  Sacred  Narrative  is 
unconfirmed  and  rests  solely  upon  its  own  basis.  Perhaps 
a  time  may  come  when  through  the  recovery  of  the  com 
plete  annals  of  Egypt,  Assyria,  and  Babylon,  we  may  obtain 
for  the  whole  of  the  Sacred  History  that  sort  of  illustration, 
which  is  now  confined  to  certain  portions  of  it.  God,  who 
disposes  all  things  "  after  the  counsel  of  his  own  will," l  and 
who  has  given  to  the  present  age  such  treasures  of  long 
buried  knowledge,  may  have  yet  greater  things  in  store  for 
us,  to  be  brought  to  light  at  His  own  good  time.  When 
the  voice  of  men  grows  faint  and  feeble,  then  the  very 
"stones  "are  made  to  "cry  out."2  "  Blessed  be  the  name 
of  God  forever  and  ever ;  for  wisdom  and  might  are  his. . . . 
He  revealeth  the  deep  and  secret  things :  He  knoweth  what 
is  in  the  darkness,  and  the  light  dwelleth  with  Hun."3 

1  Eph.  i.  11.  3  Luke  xix.  40.  3  Dan.  ii.  20,  22. 


LECTURE    V. 

BY  THE  RIVERS  OF  BABYLON,  THERE  WE  SAT  DOWN,  YEA,  WE  WEPT, 
WHEN  WE  REMEMBERED  ZION.  WE  HANGED  OUR  HARPS  UPON  THE 
WILLOWS  IN  THE  MIDST  THEREOF.  FOR  THEY  THAT  CARRIED  US 
AWAY  CAPTIVE  REQUIRED  OF  US  A  SONG  :  AND  THEY  THAT  WASTED 
US  REQUIRED  OF  US  MIRTH,  SAYING,  "  SING  US  ONE  OF  THE  SONGS 
OF  ZION."  HOW  SHALL  WE  SING  THE  LORD'S  SONG  IN  A  STRANGE 
LAND?  —  PSALM  CXXXVII.  1—4. 

WE  are  brought  now  by  the  course  of  our  inquiry  to  the 
fourth  and  closing  period  of  the  Old  Testament  History  — 
a  period  which  subdivides  itself  into  two  portions  offering 
a  marked  contrast  to  each  other,  the  time  of  the  Captivity, 
or  servitude  in  Babylon,  and  the  time  of  the  Return,  or 
gradual  reestablishment  of  the  Jews  in  their  own  country. 
From  the  direct  historical  writings  of  the  chosen  people 
the  former  time  is  omitted.  The  harp  of  the  Historic 
Muse  refuses  to  sound  during  this  sad  season;  and  it 
would  form  a  blank  in  the  Hebrew  annals,  did  we  not  pos 
sess  in  the  writings  of  one  of  the  Prophets  a  personal  nar 
rative,  which  to  some  extent  fills  up  the  gap  left  between 
Kings  and  Ezra.  Conformably  with  a  custom  which  we 
find  also  in  Isaiah  and  Jeremiah,  Daniel  combines  history 
with  prophecy,  uniting  in  a  single  book  the  visions  where 
with  he  was  favored  and  an  account  of  various  remarkable 
events  which  he  witnessed.  He  does  not,  however,  con 
fine  himself  strictly  to  the  precedent  which  those  writers 
had  set  him  j  but,  as  if  aware  that  on  him  had  devolved  the 

(130) 


LECT.  V.        TRUTH   OF  THE  SCRIPTURE  RECORDS.  131 

double  office  of  Prophet  and  Historian,  and  that  future  ages 
would  learn  the  circumstances  of  this  period  from  his  pen 
only,  he  gives  to  the  historical  element  in  his  work  a 
marked  and  very  unusual  prominence.  Hence  we  are  still 
able  to  continue  through  the  period  in  question  the  com 
parison  (in  which  we  have  been  so  long  engaged)  between 
the  History  of  the  Jews  as  delivered  by  their  own  writers, 
and  the  records  of  those  nations  with  which  they  came  in 
contact. 

If  the  book  of  Daniel  be  a  genuine  work,  the  narrative 
which  it  contains  must  possess  the  highest  degree  of  his 
torical  credibility.  The  writer  claims  to  be  a  most  compe 
tent  witness.  He  represents  himself  as  having  lived  at 
Babylon  during  the  whole  duration  of  the  Captivity,  and 
as  having  filled  situations  of  the  highest  trust  and  im 
portance  under  the  Babylonian  and  Medo-Persic  monarchs. 
Those  who  have  sought  to  discredit  the  Book,  uniformly 
maintain  that  it  is  spurious,  having  been  composed  by 
an  uninspired  writer,  who  falsely  assumed  the  name  of 
an  ancient  prophet,  M  —  or,  according  to  some,  of  a  mythic 
personage,  (2)  —  but  who  lived  really  under  Antiochus 
Epiphanes.  The  supposed  proof  of  this  last  assertion 
is  the  minuteness  and  accuracy  of  the  predictions,  which 
tally  so  exactly  with  the  known  course  of  history,  that  it  is 
said  they  must  have  been  written  after  the  events  had  hap 
pened.  This  objection,  which  was  first  made  in  the  third 
century  of  our  era  by  the  heathen  writer  Porphyry,  C3)  has 
been  revived  in  modern  times,  and  is  become  the  favorite 
argument  of  the  Rationalists,  (4>  with  whom  Prophecy 
means  nothing  but  that  natural  foresight  whereby  the  con 
sequences  of  present  facts  and  circumstances  are  antici 
pated  by  the  prudent  and  sagacious.  I  shall  not  stop  at 
this  time  to  examine  an  argument  which  can  only  persuade 


132  HISTORICAL   EVIDENCES   OF  THE  LECT.  V. 

those  who  disbelieve  in  the  prophetic  gift  altogether.  (5) 
Suffice  it  to  observe,  that  the  book  of  Daniel,  like  the 
books  of  Ezra  and  Jeremiah,  is  written  partly  in  Hebrew 
and  partly  in  Chaldee,  which  peculiarity  may  fairly  be  said 
to  fix  its  date  to  the  time  of  the  Captivity :  (6>  and  that  it 
was  translated  into  Greek  in  the  reign  of  Ptolemy  Phila- 
delplms,  more  than  seventy  years  before  the  accession  of 
Epiphanes.  (7)  There  is  therefore  every  reason  to  believe 
that  it  belongs  to  the  age  in  which  it  professes  to  have 
been  composed ;  while  no  sufficient  ground  has  been  shown 
for  doubting  that  its  writer  was  the  Daniel  whose  history 
it  records  ^  —  the  prince, (9)  —  whose  extraordinary  piety 
and  wisdom  were  commended  by  his  contemporary,  Eze- 
kiel.1  (1Q) 

The  authenticity  of  the  narrative  has  been  denied  on 
the  ground  that  it  is  irreconcilable  with  what  we  know  of 
profane  history.  According  to  De  Wette,  the  book  of 
Daniel  is  full  of  "historical  inaccuracies,  such  as  are  con 
tained  in  no  other  prophetical  book  of  the  Old  Testa 
ment."  C11)  These  pretended  inaccuracies  will  best  be  con 
sidered  in  connection  with  that  general  comparison  of  the 
sacred  narrative  with  the  profane  records  of  the  period 
in  question,  on  which  (in  pursuance  of  the  plan  uni 
formly  adopted  throughout  these  Lectures)  we  have  now 
to  enter. 

The  fundamental  fact  of  the  time  —  the  Captivity  itself 
—  is  allowed  on  all  hands  to  admit  of  no  reasonable  doubt. 
Not  only  do  we  find,  from  the  monuments  of  the  Assyrian 
kings  (12>  and  the  subsequent  history  of  Persia/13)  that  such 
transfers  of  whole  populations  were  common  in  the  East 
in  ancient  times;  but  we  have  the  direct  evidence  of 
Josephus  to  the  fact,  that  Berosus  mentioned  the  carrying 

1  Ezek.  xiv.  14  and  20    xxviii.  3. 


LECT.  V.         TRUTH   OF  THE   SCRIPTURE  RECORDS.  133 

off  of  the  Jews  by  Nebuchadnezzar  and  their  settlement  in 
parts  of  Babylonia,  (14>  Profane  evidence,  however,  on  this 
point  is  unnecessary ;  since  it  cannot  be  thought  that  any 
people  would  have  invented  a  tale  with  regard  to  them 
selves  which  redounded'  so  little  to  their  credit,  and 
from  which  it  was  impossible  that  they  could  gain  any 
advantage. 

The  character  of  Nebuchadnezzar,  the  length  of  his 
reign,  and  the  fact  of  his  having  uttered  prophecies,  are 
points  in  which  there  is  a  remarkable  agreement  between 
the  sacred  record  and  profane  authorities.  The  splendor 
and  magnificence  which  this  prince  displayed,  his  military 
successes,  his  devotion  to  his  gods,  and  the  pride  which  he 
took  in  adorning  Babylon  with  great  buildings,  are  noted  by 
Berosus  and  Abydenus ;  (15)  the  latter  of  whom  has  a  most 
curious  passage,  for  the  preservation  of  which  we  are  in 
debted  to  Eusebius,  on  the  subject  of  his  having  been 
gifted  with  prophetic  powers.  "The  Chaldeans  relate," 
says  Abydenus,  "  that,  after  this,  Nebuchadnezzar  went  up 
to  his  palace,  and  being  seized  with  a  divine  afflatus, 
prophesied  to  the  Babylonians  the  destruction  of  their  city 
by  the  Medes  and  Persians,  after  which  he  suddenly  dis 
appeared  from  among  them."  (1G)  The  details  arc  incorrect ; 
but  it  is  at  least  remarkable  that  the  particular  prince,  who 
alone,  of  all  the  heathen  monarchs  with  whom  the  Jews 
were  brought  into  contact,  is  said. in  Scripture  to  have  had 
the  future  made  known  to  him  by  God,1  is  also  the  only 
one  of  those  persons  who  is  declared  to  have  had  the  pro 
phetic  gift  by  a  profane  writer. 

The  length  of  Nebuchadnezzar's  reign  is  stated  without 
any  variety  by  Berosus,  Polyhistor,  and  Ptolemy,  (1?)  at 
forty-three  years.  The  Babylonian  monuments  go  near  to 

1  Dan.  ii.  28-9. 

12 


134  HISTORICAL  EVIDENCES  OF  THE  LECT.  V. 

prove  the  same ;  for  the  forty-second  year  of  Nebuchad 
nezzar  has  been  found  on  a  clay  tablet,  t18)  Here  Scripture 
is  in  exact  accordance ;  for  as  the  first  year  of  Evil-Mero- 
dach,  the  son  and  successor  of  Nebuchadnezzar,  is  the 
thirty-seventh  of  the  captivity  of  Jehoiachin,1  who  was 
taken  to  Babylon  in  Nebuchadnezzar's  eighth  year,2  it  is 
evident  that  just  forty-three  years  are  required  for  the 
reign  of  the  great  Chaldasan  monarch.  (19)  This  agreement, 
moreover,  is  incidental ;  for  Evil-Merodach  is  not  said  in 
Scripture  to  have  been  the  successor  of  Nebuchadnezzar : 
we  only  know  this  fact  from  profane  sources. 

It  has  been  maintained  that  the  book  of  Daniel  misrep 
resents  the  condition  of  Babylonia  under  Nebuchad 
nezzar  ;(2°)  the  points  to  which  objection  is  especially 
taken  being  the  account  given  of  the  Babylonian  wise  men, 
the  admission  of  Daniel  among  them,  and  the  apparent 
reference  to  something  like  a  satrapial  organization  of  the 
empire.  (21)  With  respect  to  the  first  point,  it  would  really 
be  far  more  reasonable  to  adduce  the  descriptions  in  ques 
tion  as  proof  of  the  intimate  knowledge  which  the  writer 
possessed  of  the  condition  of  learning  among  the  Baby 
lonians,  than  to  bring  them  forward  as  indications  of  his 
ignorance.  The  wise  men  are  designated  primarily  by  a 
word  which  exactly  suits  the  condition  of  literature  in  the 
time  and  country  —  a  word  derived  from  the  root  cheret, 
which  means  "a  graving  tool,"  exactly  the  instrument 
wherewith  a  Babylonian  ordinarily  wrote.  C22)  They  are 
also  termed  Chasdim  or  Chaldeans,  whereby  a  knowledge 
is  shown  beyond  that  of  the  earlier  prophets  —  a  knowledge 
of  the  fact  that  the  term  "  Chaldaean "  was  not  properly 
applied  to  the  whole  nation,  but  only  to  a  learned  caste  or 

1  2  Kings  xxv.  27  ;  Jcr.  lii.  31. 

2  2  Kings  xxiv.  12.     Compare  Jer.  xxv.  1. 


lECT.  V.         TRUTH   OF  THE   SCRIPTURE  RECORDS.  135 

class,  the  possessors  of  the  old  wisdom,  which  was  written 
in  the  Chaldean  tongue.  C23) 

The  objection  raised  to  the  admission  of  Daniel  among 
the  "  wise  men,"  is  based  on  the  mistaken  notion  that  they 
were  especially  a  priestly  caste,  presiding  over  the  national 
religion ;  whereas  the  truth  seems  to  be  that  they  were  a 
learned  class,  including  the  priests,  but  not  identical  with 
them,  and  corresponding  rather  to  the  graduates  of  a  uni 
versity  than  to  the  clergy  of  an  establishment.  (94)  Into 
such  a  class  foreigners,  and  those  of  a  different  religion, 
might  readily  be  admitted. 

With  respect  to  what  has  been  called  the  usatrapial 
organization  "  of  the  empire  under  Nebuchadnezzar,1  (and 
again  under  Darius  the  Mede,2)  it  is  to  be  observed  in  the 
first  place,  that  nothing  like  a  general  organization  of  the 
kind  is  asserted.  We  are  told  of  certain  "  rulers  of  prov 
inces,"  who  were  summoned  to  worship  the  golden  image 
set  up  in  the  plain  of  Dura;3  and  we  find  that  Judaea 
itself,  after  the  revolt  of  Zedekiah,  was  placed  under  a 
"  governor." 4  But  the  latter  case  was  exceptional,  being 
consequent  upon  the  frequent  rebellions  of  the  Jewish  peo 
ple  :  and  in  the  former  we  are  probably  to  understand  the 
chiefs  of  districts  in  the  immediate  vicinity  of  Babylonia, 
who  alone  would  be  summoned  on  such  an  occasion  —  not 
the  rulers  of  all  the  conquered  nations  throughout  the 
empire.  Further,  we  must  remark,  that  the  system  of 
Babylonian  administration  is  but  very  little  known  to  us ; 
and  that  it  may  to  some  extent  have  been  satrapial. 
Berosus,  at  any  rate,  speaks  expressly  of  "  the  /Satrap  ap 
pointed  by  Nabopolassar  to  govern  Phoenicia,  Coele-Syrin, 
and  Egypt  ;"(2S)  and  it  is  not  impossible  that  Darius 

1  Dan.  ill.  2,  &c.  2  Ibid.  vi.  1,  &c.  3  Ibid.  iii.  1,  2. 

4  2  Kings  xxv.  22.     Compare  Jer.  xl.  and  xli. 


136  HISTORICAL   EVIDENCES   OF   THE  LECT.  V. 

Hystaspis,  who  is  usually  regarded  as  the  inventor  of  the 
system,  may  have  merely  enlarged  a  practice  begun  by  the 
Babylonians.  (2G) 

There  is  thus  no  ground  for  the  assertion  that  the 
general  condition  of  Babylonia  under  Nebuchadnezzar  is 
incorrectly  represented  in  the  book  of  Daniel.  Daniel's 
representation  agrees  sufficiently  with  the  little  that  we 
know  of  Babylon  at  this  time  from  any  authentic 
source,  (27>  and  has  an  internal  harmony  and  consistency 
which  is  very  striking.  We  may  therefore  resume  our 
comparison  of  the  particulars  of  the  civil  history,  as  it  is 
delivered  by  the  sacred  writers,  and  as  it  has  come  down  to 
us  from  the  Babylonians  themselves. 

Berosus  appears  to  have  kept  silence  on  the  subject  of 
Nebuchadnezzar's  mysterious  malady.  I  cannot  think,  with 
Hengstenberg,  (28)  that  either  he  or  Abydenus  intended 
any  allusion  to  this  remarkable  fact  in  the  accounts  which 
they  furnished  of  his  decease.  It  was  not  to  be  expected 
that  the  native  writer  would  tarnish  the  glory  of  his 
country's  greatest  monarch  by  any  mention  of  an  affliction 
which  was  of  so  strange  and  debasing  a  character.  Nor  is 
it  at  all  certain  that  he  would  be  aware  of  it.  As  Nebu 
chadnezzar  outlived  his  affliction,  and  was.  again  "estab 
lished  in  his  kingdom," l  all  monuments  belonging  to  the 
time  of  his  malady  would  have  been  subject  to  his  own  re 
vision  ;  and  if  any  record  of  it  was  allowed  to  descend  to 
posterity,  care  would  have  been  taken  that  the  truth  was 
not  made  too  plain,  by  couching  the  record  in  sufficiently 
ambiguous  phraseology.  Berosus  may  have  read,  without 
fully  understanding  it,  a  document  which  has  descended  to 
modern  times  in  a  tolerably  complete  condition,  and  which 
seems  to  contain  an  allusion  to  the  fact  that  the  great  king 

1  Dan.  iv.  36. 


LECT.   V.        TRUTH   OF  THE   SCRIPTURE   RECORDS.  137 

was  for  a  time  incapacitated  for  the  discharge  of  the  royal 
functions.  In  the  inscription  known  as  the  "  Standard 
Inscription  "  of  Nebuchadnezzar,  the  monarch  himself  re 
lates,  that  during  some  considerable  time  —  four  years  ap 
parently —  all  his  great  works  were  at  a  stand  —  "he  did 
not  build  high  places  —  he  did  not  lay  up  treasures  —  he 
did  not  sing  the  praises  of  his  Lord,  Merodach  —  he  did 
not  offer  him  sacrifice  —  he  did  not  keep  up  the  works  of 
irrigation.'^29)  The  cause  of  this  suspension,  at  once  of 
religious  worship  and  of  works  of  utility,  is  stated  in  the 
document  in  phrases  of  such  obscurity  as  to  be  unintelligi 
ble  ;  until  therefore  a  better  explanation  is  offered,  it  can 
not  but  be  regarded  as  at  least  highly  probable,  that  the 
passage  in  question  contains  the  royal  version  of  that 
remarkable  story  with  which  Daniel  concludes  his  notice 
of  the  great  Chaldean  sovereign. 

For  the  space  of  time  intervening  between  the  recovery 
of  Nebuchadnezzar  from  his  affliction  and  the  conquest  of 
Babylon  by  the  Medo-Persians,  which  was  a  period  of 
about  a  quarter  of  a  century,  the  Biblical  narrative  sup 
plies  us  with  but  a  single  fact  —  the  release  from  prison 
of  Jehoiachin  by  Evil-Merodach  in  the  year  that  he  as 
cended  the  throne  of  his  father.  It  has  been  already  re 
marked  that  the  native  historian  agreed  exactly  in  the 
name  of  this  prince  and  the  year  of  his  accession ;  he 
added,  (what  Scripture  does  not  expressly  state,)  that 
Evil-Merodach  was  Nebuchadnezzar's  son.  (3°)  With  re 
gard  to  the  character  of  this  monarch,  there  seems  at  first 
sight  to  be  a  contrast  between  the  account  of  Berosua  and 
the  slight  indications  which  the  Scripture  narrative  fur 
nishes.  Berosus  taxes  Evil-Merodach  with  intemperance 
and  lawlessness ;  (31)  Scripture  relates  that  he  had  com 
passion  on  Jehoiachin,  released  him  from  prison,  and 

12* 


138  HISTORICAL   EVIDENCES   OP   THE  LECT.  V. 

"  spake  kindly  unto  him  " 1  —  allowed  him  the  rank  of  king 
once  more,  and  made  him  a  constant  guest  at  his  table, 
thus  treating  him  Avith  honor  and  tenderness  during  the 
short  remainder  of  his  life.  Perhaps  to  the  Babylonians 
such  a  reversal  of  the  policy  pursued  by  their  great  mon 
arch  appeared  to  be  mere  reckless  "  lawlessness ; "  and  Evil- 
Merodach  may  have  been  deposed,  in  part  at  least,  because 
of  his  departure  from  the  received  practice  of  the  Babylo 
nians  with  respect  to  rebel  princes. 

The  successor  of  this  unfortunate  king  was  his  brother- 
in-law,  Neriglissar ;  who,  although  not  mentioned  in  Scrip 
ture  as  a  monarch,  has  been  recognized  among  the  "princes 
of  the  king  of  Babylon"2  by  whom  Nebuchadnezzar  was 
accompanied  in  his  last  siege  of  Jerusalem.  A  name  there 
given,  Nergal-shar-ezar,  corresponds  letter  for  letter  with 
that  of  a  king  whose  remains  arc  found  on  the  site  of  Baby 
lon,  (32)  and  who  is  reasonably  identified  with  the  Xeriglissar 
of  Berosus  and  the  Nerigassolassar  of  Ptolemy's  Canon. 
Moreover,  the  title  of  "  Rab-Mag,"  which  this  personage 
bears  in  Jeremiah,  is  found  attached  to  the  name  of  the 
Babylonian  monarch  in  his  brick  legends  (33>  —  a  coin 
cidence  of  that  minute  and  exact  kind  which  is  one  of  the 
surest  indications  of  authentic  history. 

Of  the  son  of  Neriglissar,  who  was  a  mere  child,  and 
reigned  but  a  few  months,  Scripture  certainly  contains  no 
trace.  Whether  his  successor,  the  last  native  king  of  the 
Canon,  whose  name  is  there  given  as  Nabonadius,  and 
who  appears  elsewhere  as  Xabannidochus,  Nabonnedus, 
or  Labynetus  ( :;4)  —  whether  this  monarch  has  a  place  in 
the  Scriptural  narrative  or  no,  has  long  been  a  matter  of 
dispute  among  the  learned.  That  there  is  no  name  in  the 
least  resembling  Nabonadius  in  the  Bible,  is  granted.  But 

1  2  Kings  xxv.  28.  2  Jerem.  xxxix.  3  and  13. 


LECT.  V.         TRUTH   OP  THE  SCRIPTURE  RECORDS.  139 

it  has  been  by  many  supposed  that  that  prince  must  be 
identical  with  Daniel's  Belshazzar  (35) —  the  last  native 
ruler  mentioned  in  Scripture.  The  great  diversity,  how 
ever,  of  the  two  names,  coupled  with  the  fact  that  in  every 
other  case  of  a  Semitic  monarch  —  whether  Assyrian  or 
Babylonian  —  the  Hebrew  representative  is  a  near  expres 
sion  of  the  vernacular  term,  has  always  made  this  theory 
unsatisfactory  ;  and  Rationalists,  finding  no  better  explana 
tion  than  this  of  the  acknowledged  difficulty,  (3G)  have  been 
emboldened  to  declare  that  Daniel's  account  of  Belshazzar 
is  a  pure  invention  of  his  own,  that  it  contradicts  Berosus, 
and  is  an  unmistakable  indication  of  the  unhistorical  char 
acter  which  attaches  to  the  entire  narrative.  (3?)  It  was 
difficult  to  meet  the  arguments  of  these  objectors  in  former 
times.  Not  only  could  they  point  to  the  want  of  confir 
mation  by  any  profane  writer  of  the  name  Belshazzar,  but 
they  could  urge  further  "contradictions."  Berosus,  they 
could  say,  made  the  last  Babylonian  monarch  absent  from 
the  city  at  the  time  of  its  capture  by  the  Persians.  He 
spoke  of  him  as  taken  prisoner  afterwards  at  Borsippa,  and 
as  then  not  slain,  but  treated  with  much  kindness  by 
Cyrus.  Thus  the  two  narratives  of  the  fall  of  Babylon 
appeared  to  be  wholly  irreconcilable,  and  some  were 
driven  to  suppose  two  falls  of  Babylon,  to  escape  the  seem- 
in  &  contrariety.  (38)  But  out  of  all  this  confusion  and 
uncertainty  a  very  small  and  simple  discovery,  made  a  few 
years  since,  has  educed  order  and  harmony  in  a  very 
remarkable  way.  It  is  found  that  Nabonadius,  the  last 
king  of  the  Canon,  associated  with  him  on  the  throne 
during  the  later  years  of  his  reign  his  son,  Bil-shar-uzur, 
and  allowed  him  the  royal  title.  (39>  There  can  be  little 
doubt  that  it  was  this  prince  who  conducted  the  defence 
of  Babylon,  and  was  slain  in  the  massacre  which  followed 


140  HISTORICAL   EVIDENCES    OF   THE  LECT.  V. 

upon  the  capture ;  while  his  father,  who  was  at  the  time 
in  Borsippa,  surrendered,  and  experienced  the  clemency 
which  was  generally  shown  to  fallen  kings  by  the  Persians. 

If  it  be  still  objected  that  Belshazzar  is,  in  Scripture, 
not  the  son  of  Nabonadius,  but  of  Nebuchadnezzar,1  and 
of  the  Nebuchadnezzar  who  carried  off  the  sacred  vessels 
from  Babylon,2  it  is  enough  to  reply,  first,  that  the  word 
"  son "  is  used  in  Scripture  not  only  in  its  proper  sense, 
but  also  as  equivalent  to  "  grandson,"  or  indeed  any 
descendant ;  (4°)  and  secondly,  that  Ril-shar-uzur  (or  Bel 
shazzar)  may  easily  have  been  Nebuchadnezzar's  grandson, 
since  his  father  may  upon  his  accession  have  married  a 
daughter  of  Nebuchadnezzar,  and  Belshazzar  may  have 
been  the  issue  of  this  marriage.  (41)  A  usurper  in  those 
days  commonly  sought  to  strengthen  himself  in  the  gov 
ernment  by  an  alliance  with  some  princess  of  the  house,  or 
branch,  which  he  dispossessed. 

There  still  remains  one  historical  difficulty  in  the  book 
of  Daniel,  which  modern  research  has  not  yet  solved,  but 
of  which  Time,  the  great  discoverer,  will  perhaps  one  day 
bring  the  solution.  We  can  only  at  present  indulge  in 
conjectures  concerning  "Darius  the  Mede,"  who  "took  the 
kingdom"  after  Belshazzar  was  slain.3  He  has  been  identi 
fied  with  Astyages,  (42>  with  Cyaxares,  a  supposed  son  of 
Astyages,  (43>  with  Neriglissar,  (44>  and  with  Nabonadius  ;^5> 
but  each  of  these  suppositions  has  its  difficulties,  and  per 
haps  it  is  the  most  probable  view  that  he  was  a  viceroy  set 
up  by  Cyrus,  of  whom  there  is  at  present  no  trace  in  pro 
fane  history.  (4G> 

The  fact  of  the  sudden  and  unexpected  capture  of  Baby 
lon  by  a  Medo-Persic  army  during  the  celebration  of  a 
festival,  and  of  the  consequent  absorption  of  the  Babylo- 

1  Dan.  v.  11,  18,  &c,  2  Ibid,  verse  2.  3  Ibid.  v.  31. 


LECT.  V          TRUTH  OF  THE  SCRIPTURE  RECORDS.  141 

nian  into  the  Medo-Persic  Empire,  is  one  of  those  mani 
fest  points  of  agreement  between  Scripture  and  profane 
authors  (47)  which  speak  for  themselves,  and  on  which  all 
comment  would  be  superfluous.  The  administration  of 
the  realm  after  the  conquest  by  "  the  law  of  the  Medes  and 
Persians  which  altereth  not," l  is  at  once  illustrative  of  that 
unity  of  the  two  great  Arian  races  which  all  ancient  his 
tory  attests,  C48)  and  in  harmony  with  that  superiority  of  law 
to  the  king's  caprice,  which  seems  to  have  distinguished  the 
Persian  from  most  Oriental  despotisms.  (49)  With  respect 
to  the  "satrapial  organization  of  the  Empire,"  which  is 
again  detected  in  Daniel's  account  of  the  reign  of  Darius 
the  Mede,(5°)  and  which  is  supposed  to  have  been  trans 
ferred  to  this  time  from  the  reign  of  Darius  Hystaspis  by 
an  anachronism,  it  maybe  observed,  that  the  "one  hundred 
and  twenty  princes  "  which  "  it  pleased  Darius  to  set  over 
the  kingdom," 2  are  not  the  satraps,  perhaps  not  even  pro 
vincial  governors  at  all,  but  rather  a  body  of  councillors 
resident  in  or  near  the  capital,  and  accustomed  to  meet 
together,3  to  advise  the  monarch.  It  is  a  mistake  to  sup 
pose  that  Darius  the  Mede,  like  the  Ahasuerus  of  Esther, 
with  whom  he  has  been  compared,  (5])  rules  over  the  East 
generally.  lie  "was  made  king  over  the  realm  of  the 
Chaldceans  "  4  —  that  is,  he  received  from  Cyrus,  the  true 
conqueror  of  Babylon,  the  kingdom  of  Babylonia  Proper, 
which  he  held  as  a  fief  under  the  Medo-Persic  Empire. 
The  one  hundred  and  twenty  princes  are  either  his  council, 
or  at  the  most  provincial  governors  in  the  comparatively 
small  kingdom  of  Babylon ;  and  the  coincidence  (if  such  it 
is  to  be  considered)  between  their  number  and  that  of  the 
one  hundred  and  twenty-seven  provinces  of  Ahasuerus, 

1  Dan.  vi.  8.  2  Ibid,  verse  1. 

3  Ibid,  verses  4-6.  4  Ibid.  ix.  1. 


142  HISTORICAL  EVIDENCES  OF  THE  LECT.  V. 

extending  from  Ethiopia  to  India,1  is  purely  accidental. 
There  is  no  question  here  of  the  administration  of  an 
Empire,  but  only  of  the  internal  regulations  of  a  single 
province. 

We  have  now  reached  the  time  when  the  Captivity  of 
Judah  approached  its  close.  "  In  the  first  year  of  Darius, 
the  son  of  Ahasuerus,  of  the  seed  of  the  Medes," 2  Daniel, 
who  naturally  counted  the  Captivity  from  the  time  when 
he  was  himself  carried  off  from  Jerusalem,3  perceiving  that 
the  period  fixed  by  Jeremiah  for  the  restoration  of  the 
Jews  to  their  own  land  approached,  "  set  his  face  to  seek 
by  prayer  and  supplications,  with  fastings,  and  sackcloth, 
and  ashes," 4  that  God  would  "  turn  away  his  fury  and 
anger  from  Jerusalem," 5  and  "  cause  his  face  to  shine  upon 
his  sanctuary," 6  and  "  do,  and  defer  not." 7  It  is  evident 
therefore  that,  according  to  the  calculations  of  Daniel,  a 
space  little  short  of  seventy  years  had  elapsed  from  the 
capture  of  Jerusalem  in  the  reign  of  Jehoiakim  to  the  first 
year  of  Darius  the  Mede.  The  close  agreement  of  this 
chronology  with  the  Babylonian  is  very  remarkable.  It 
can  be  clearly  shown  from  a  comparison  of  Berosus  with 
Ptolemy's  Canon,  that,  according  to  the  reckoning  of  the 
Babylonians,  the  time  between  Nebuchadnezzar's  first  con 
quest  of  Judaea  in  the  reign  of  Jehoiakim,  and  the  year 
following  the  fall  of  Babylon,  when  Daniel  made  his 
prayer,  was  sixty-eight  years,  (52)  or  two  years  only  short  of 
the  seventy  which  had  been  fixed  by  Jeremiah  as  the  dura 
tion  of  the  Captivity. 

Attempts  have  been  made  to  prove  a  still  more  exact 
agreement ;  (53)  but  they  are  unnecessary.  Approximate 

1  Esther  i.  1.  2  Dan.  ix.  1.  3  Ibid.  i.  1. 

4  Ibid.  ix.  3.         6  Ibid,  verse  1&.      6  Ibid,  verse  17. 

7  Dan.  ix.  19. 


LECT.  V.        TRUTH   OF  THE  SCRIPTURE  RECORDS.  143 

coincidence  is  the  utmost  that  we  have  any  right  to  expect 
between  the  early  chronologies  of  different  nations,  whose 
methods  of  reckoning  are  in  most  cases  somewhat  differ 
ent  ;  and  in  the  present  instance  the  term  of  seventy  years, 
being  primarily  a  prophetic  and  not  an  historic  number,  is 
perhaps  not  intended  to  be  exact  and  definite.  (51) 

The  restoration  of  the  Jews  to  their  own  land,  and  their 
fortunes  till  the  reform  of  Xehemiah,  are  related  to  us  in 
the  three  historical  books  of  Ezra,  Nehemiah,  and  Esther ; 
and  receive  illustration  from  the  prophecies  of  Zechariah, 
Haggai,  and  Malachi.  The  generally  authentic  character 
of  the  books  of  Ezra  and  Nehemiah  has  never  been  ques 
tioned.  They  disarm  the  Rationalist  by  the  absence  from 
them  of  any  miraculous,  or  even  any  very  marvellous 
features ;  and  the  humble  and  subdued  tone  in  which  they 
are  written,  the  weakness  and  subjection  which  they  con 
fess,  mark  in  the  strongest  possible  way  the  honesty  and 
good  faith  of  their  composers.  Under  these  circumstances 
the  question  of  their  genuineness  becomes  one  of  minor 
importance.  If  the  relations  are  allowed  to  be  true,  it  is  of 
little  consequence  who  was  their  author.  I  see,  however, 
no  reason  to  doubt  that  in  the  main  the  two  books  are  the 
works  of  the  individuals  whose  names  they  bear  in  the 
Septuagint  and  in  our  oAvn  Version.  That  some  portions 
of  the  book  of  Ezra  were  written  by  Ezra,  and  that  Nehe 
miah  wrote  the  greater  part  of  the  book  of  Xehemiah,  is 
allowed  even  by  De  Wette ;  who  has  not  (I  think)  shown 
sufficient  ground  for  questioning  the  integrity  of  either 
composition^55)  unless  in  respect  of  a  single  passage.  The 
genealogy  of  the  high  priests  in  the  twelfth  chapter  of 
Xehemiah1  is  a  later  addition  to  the  book,  which  cannot 
have  been  inserted  into  it  before  the  time  of  Alexander.  (5G> 

1  Verses  10  to  22. 


11-i  HISTORICAL   EVIDENCES    OF   THE  LECT.  V. 

It  stands  to  the  rest  of  Nehemiah  as  the  genealogy  of  the 
Dukes  of  Eclom *  stands  to  Genesis,  or  that  of  the  descend 
ants  of  Jechoniah 2  to  the  rest  of  Chronicles.  (57>  But  apart 
from  this  passage  there  is  nothing  in  ISTehemiah  which  may 
not  have  been  written  by  the  cupbearer  of  Artaxerxes 
Longimanus ;  while  in  Ezra  there  is  absolutely  nothing  at 
all  which  may  not  easily  have  proceeded  from  the  pen  of 
the  "  ready  scribe "  who  was  in  favor  with  the  same  mon 
arch.  It  is  objected  that  the  book  sometimes  speaks 
of  Ezra  in  the  third,  sometimes  in  the  first  person  ; 
and  concluded  from  this  fact  that  he  did  not  write  the 
parts  in  which  the  third  person  is  used.  (58)  But  the 
examples  of  Daniel  (59)  and  Thucydides  (6°)  are  sufficient 
to  show  that  an  author  may  change  from  the  one  person  to 
the  other  even  more  than  once  in  the  course  of  a  work ; 
and  the  case  of  Daniel  is  especially  in  point,  as  indicating 
the  practice  of  the  period.  The  same  irregularity  (it  may 
be  remarked)  occurs  in  the  Persian  inscriptions.  (61)  It  be 
longs  to  the  simplicity  of  rude  times,  and  has  its  parallel  in 
the  similar  practice  found  even  now  in  the  letters  of  unedu 
cated  persons. 

If  then  the  books  of  Ezra  and  Nehemiah  arc  rightly  re 
garded  as  the  works  of  those  personages,  they  will  possess 
the  same  high  degree  of  historical  credibility  as  the  later 
portions  of  the  Pentateuch.  Ezra  and  Nehemiah  were 
chief  men  in  their  nation  —  the  one  being  the  ecclesiastical, 
the  other  the  civil  head  ;  and  they  wrote  the  national  his 
tory  of  their  own  time,  for  which  they  are  the  most  com 
petent  witnesses  that  could  possibly  have  come  forward. 
Ezra,  moreover,  resembles  Moses  in  another  respect ;  he 
not  only  gives  an  account  of  his  own  dealings  with  the 
Jewish  people,  but  prefaces  that  account  by  a  sketch  of 

1  Gen.  xxxvi.  31-13.  "  1  Chron.  iii.  17-24. 


LECT.  V.         TRUTH  OP  THE  SCRIPTURE  RECORDS.  145 

their  history  during  a  period  with  which  he  was  personally 
unacquainted.  As  this  period  does  not  extend  farther 
back  than  about  eighty  years  from  the  time  when  he  took 
the  direction  of  affairs  at  Jerusalem,  (G2)  and  as  the  facts 
recorded  are  of  high  national  importance,  they  would  de 
serve  to  be  accepted  on  his  testimony,  even  supposing  that 
he  obtained  them  from  mere  oral  tradition,  according  to 
the  Canons  of  historical  credibility  which  have  been  laid 
down  in  the  first  Lecture.  (G3)  Ezra's  sketch,  however,  (as 
many  commentators  have  seen,)  bears  traces  of  having 
been  drawn  up  from  contemporary  documents ;  (64>  and  we 
may  safely  conclude,  that  the  practice  of  "  noting  down 
public  annals,"  which  we  have  seen  reason  to  regard  as  a 
part  of  the  prophetic  office  under  the  Kings,  (65>  was  re 
vived  on  the  return  from  the  Captivity,  when  Haggai  and 
Zechariah  may  probably  have  discharged  the  duty  which  at 
an  earlier  period  had  been  undertaken  by  Jeremiah  and 
Isaiah. 

While  the  historical  authority  of  the  books  of  Ezra  and 
Nehemiah  is  recognized  almost  universally,  that  of  Esther 
is  impugned  by  a  great  variety  of  writers.  Niebuhr's  re 
jection  of  this  book  has  been  already  noticed.  (GG)  De 
Wette  regards  it  as  "  consisting  of  a  string  of  historical 
difficulties  and  improbabilities,  and  as  containing  a  number 
of  errors  in  regard  to  Persian  customs."  (G7>  (Eder,  Mi- 
chaelis,  Corrodi,  Bertholdt,  and  others,  throw  more  or  less 
doubt  upon  its  authenticity.  C68)  The  Jews,  however,  have 
always  looked  upon  it,  not  only  as  a  true  and  authentic 
history,  but  as  a  book  deserving  of  special  honor ;  (69)  and 
it  seems  impossible  to  account  for  its  introduction  into 
their  Canon  on  any  other  ground  than  that  of  its  historic 
truth.  The  feast  of  Purim,  which  the  Jews  still  celebrate, 
and  at  which  the  -book  of  Esther  is  always  read,  must  be 

13 


146  HISTORICAL   EVIDENCES   OF   THE  LECT.  V. 

regarded  as  sufficiently  evidencing  the  truth  of  the  main 
facts  of  the  narrative ;  (7°)  and  the  Jews  would  certainly 
never  have  attached  to  the  religious  celebration  of  that 
festival  the  reading  of  a  document  from  which  the  religious 
.  element  is  absent,  or  almost  absent,  (71)  had  they  not  be 
lieved  it  to  contain  a  correct  account  of  the  details  of  the 
transaction.  Their  belief  constitutes  an  argument  of  very 
great  weight ;  to  destroy  its  force  there  is  needed  some 
thing  more  than  the  exhibition  of  a  certain  number  of 
"  difficulties  and  improbabilities,"  such  as  continually  pre 
sent  themselves  to  the  historic  student  in  connection  even 
with  his  very  best  materials.  (72) 

The  date  and  author  of  the  book  of  Esther  are  points 
of  very  great  uncertainty.  The  Jews  in  general  ascribe  it 
to  Mordecai;  but  some  say  that  it  was  written  by  the 
High  Priest,  Joiakim ;  while  others  assign  the  composition 
to  the  Great  Synagogue.  (73>  It  appears  from  an  expression 
at  the  close  of  the  ninth  chapter  —  "And  the  decree  of 
Esther  confirmed  these  matters  of  Purim,  and  it  was 
written  in  the  book " l  —  that  the  whole  affair  was  put  on 
record  at  once ;  but  "  the  book  "  here  spoken  of  is  probably 
that  "  book  of  the  Chronicles  of  the  kings  of  Media  and 
Persia,"2  which  had  been  mentioned  more  than  once  in 
the  earlier  part  of  the  narrative.3  To  this  work  the  actual 
writer  of  our  book  of  Esther  —  whoever  he  may  have  been 
—  evidently  had  access ;  and  it  is  a  reasonable  supposition 
that  in  the  main  he  follows  his  Persian  authority.  Hence 
probably  that  omission  of  the  name  of  God,  and  of  the 
distinctive  tenets  of  the  Israelites,  which  has  been  made  an 
objection  by  some  to  the  canonicity  of  this  book.  (74) 

We  have  now  to  examine  the  narrative  contained  in 
Ezra,  Nehemiah,  and  Esther,  by  the  light  which  profane 

J  Esther  ix.  32.          2  Ibid.  x.  2.         3  Ibid.  ii.  23  ;  and  vi.  1. 


LECT.  V.         TRUTH   OF  THE   SCRIPTURE  RECORDS.  147 

history  throws  on  it,  more  particularly  in  respect  of  those 
points  which  have  been  illustrated  by  recent  discoveries. 

There  are  probably  few  things  more  surprising  to  the  in 
telligent  student  of  Scripture  than  the  religious  tone  of  the 
proclamations  which  are  assigned  in  Ezra  to  Cyrus,  Darius, 
and  Artaxerxes.  "  The  Lord  God  of  heaven?  says  Cyrus, 
"hath  given  me  all  the  kingdoms  of  the  earth,  and  he  hath 
charged  me  to  build  him  a  house  at  Jerusalem,  which  is 
in  Judah.  Who  is  there  among  you  of  all  his  people  ? 
His  God  be  with  him,  and  let  him  go  up  to  Jerusalem, 
which  is  in  Judah,  and  build  the  house  of  the  Lord  God 
of  Israel  (he  is  the  God)  which  is  in  Jerusalem." x  "  I  make 
a  decree,"  says  Darius,  "  that  these  men  be  not  hindered  . . . 
that  which  they  have  need  of ...  for  the  burnt-offerings  of 
the  God  of  heaven ...  let  it  be  given  them  day  by  day 
without  fail ;  that  they  may  offer  sacrifices  of  sweet  savors 
unto  the  God  of  heaven,  and  pray  for  the  life  of  the  king 
and  of  his  sons." 2  "  Artaxerxes,  king  of  kings,"  writes 
that  monarch,  "  unto  Ezra  the  priest,  the  scribe  of  the  law 
of  the  God  of  heaven,  perfect  peace,  and  at  such  a  time  . .  . 
Whatsoever  is  commanded  by  the  God  of  heaven,  let  it  be 
diligently  done  for  the  house  of  the  God  of  heaven  ;  for 
why  should  there  be  wrath  against  the  realm  of  the  king 
arid  his  sons  ?  " 3  Two  things  are  especially  remarkable  in 
these  passages  —  first,  the  strongly  marked  religious  char 
acter,  very  unusual  in  heathen  documents ;  and  secondly, 
the  distinctness  with  which  they  assert  the  unity  of  God, 
and  thence  identify  the  God  of  the  Persians  with  the  God 
of  the  Jews.  Both  these  points  receive  abundant  illustra 
tion  from  the  Persian  cuneiform  inscriptions,  in  which  the 
recognition  of  a  single  supreme  God,  Ormazd,  and  the 

1  Ezra  i.  2,  3.     Compare  2  Chron.  xxxvi.  23. 

2  Ibid.  vi.  8-10.  3  Ibid.  vii.  12,  23. 


148  HISTORICAL  EVIDENCES   OF  THE  LECT.  V. 

clear  and  constant  ascription  to  him  of  the  direction  of  all 
mundane  affairs,  are  leading  features.  In  all  the  Persian 
monuments  of  any  length,  the  monarch  makes  the  acknowl 
edgment  that  "  Ormazd  has  bestowed  on  him  his  empire."  (75) 
Every  success  that  is  gained  is  "  by  the  grace  of  Ormazd." 
The  name  of  Ormazd  occurs  in  almost  every  other  para 
graph  of  the  Behistun  inscription.  No  public  monuments 
with  such  a  pervading  religious  spirit  have  ever  been  dis 
covered  among  the  records  of  any  heathen  nation  as  those 
of  the  Persian  kings ;  and  through  all  of  them,  down  to  the 
time  of  Artaxerxes  Ochus,  the  name  of  Ormazd  stands 
alone  and  unapproachable,  as  that  of  the  Supreme  Lord  of 
earth  and  heaven.  The  title  "Lord  of  Heaven,"  which 
runs  as  a  sort  of  catchword  through  these  Chaldee  transla 
tions  of  the  Persian  records,  is  not  indeed  in  the  cuneiform 
monuments  distinctly  attached  to  him  as  an  epithet ;  but 
the  common  formula  wherewith  inscriptions  open  sets  him 
forth  as  "  the  great  God  Ormazd,  who  gave  both  earth  and 
heaven  to  mankind."  (76> 

It  is  generally  admitted  that  the  succession  of  the  Per 
sian  kings  from  Cyrus  to  Darius  Hystaspis  is  correctly 
given  in  Ezra.C77)  The  names  of  the  two  intermediate 
monarchs  are  indeed  replaced  by  others  —  and  it  is  difficult 
to  explain  how  these  kings  came  to  be  known  to  the  Jews 
as  Ahasuerus  and  Artaxerxes,  instead  of  Cambyses  and 
Smerdist78) —  but  the  exact  agreement  in  the  number  of 
the  reigns,  and  the  harmony  in  the  chronology  (79)  have 
caused  it  to  be  almost  universally  allowed  that  Cambyses 
and  Smerdis  are  intended.  Assuming  this,  we  may  note 
that  the  only  Persian  king  who  is  said  to  have  interrupted 
the  building  of  the  temple  is  that  Magian  monarch,  the 
Pseudo-Srnerdis,  who  was  opposed  to  the  pure  Persian 
religion,  and  who  would  therefore  have  been  likely  to 


LECT.  V.        TRUTH   OP  THE  SCRIPTURE  RECORDS.  149 

reverse  the  religious  policy  of  his  predecessors.  The  Sa 
maritans  "  weakened  the  hands  of  the  people  of  Judah  and 
troubled  them  in  building"1  during  the  reigns  of  Cyrus  and 
Cambyses;  but  it  was  not  till  the  letter  of  the  Pseudo- 
Smerdis  was  received,  that  "  the  work  of  the  house  of  God 
ceased."2  The  same  prince,  that  is,  who  is  stated  in  the 
inscriptions  to  have  changed  the  religion  of  Persia,  (8°)  ap 
pears  in  Ezra  as  the  opponent  of  a  religious  work,  which 
Cyrus  had  encouraged,  and  Cambyses  had  allowed  to  be 
carried  on. 

The  reversal  by  Darius  of  the  religious  policy  of  the 
Magian  monarch,  and  his  recurrence  to  the  line  of  conduct 
which  had  been  pursued  by  Cyrus,  as  related  in  Ezra,  har 
monize  completely  with  the  account  which  Darius  himself 
gives  of  his  proceedings  soon  after  his  accession.  "I  re 
stored  to  the  people,"  he  says,  "  the  religious  worship,  of 
which  the  Magian  had  deprived  them.  As  it  was  before, 
so  I  arranged  it."  (81)  Of  course,  this  passage  refers  prima 
rily  to  the  Persian  Court  religion,  and  its  reestablishment 
in  the  place  of  Magism  as  the  religion  of  the  state ;  but 
such  a  return  to  comparatively  pure  principles  would 
involve  a  renewal  of  the  old  sympathy  with  the  Jews  and 
with  the  worship  of  Jehovah.  Accordingly,  while  the  let 
ter  of  the  Magus3  is  devoid  of  the  slightest  reference  to 
religion,  that  of  Darius  exhibits  —  as  has  been  already 
shown  —  the  same  pious  and  reverential  spirit,  the  same 
respect  for  the  God  of  the  Jews,  and  the  same  identifica 
tion  of  Him  with  the  Supreme  Being  recognized  by  the 
Persians,  which  are  so  prominent  in  the  decree  of  Cyrus. 
Darius  is  careful  to  follow  in  the  footsteps  of  the  great 
founder  of  the  monarchy,  and  under  him  "the  house  of 

1  1  Ezra  iv.  4.  2  Ibid,  verse  24.  3  Ibid.  iv.  17  to  22. 

13* 


150  HISTORICAL  EVIDENCES   OF  THE  LECT.  V. 

God  at  Jerusalem,"  which  Cyrus  was  "  charged "  to  build,1 
is  finally  "builded  and  finished."2 

A  break  occurs  in  the  Biblical  narrative  between  the 
sixth  and  seventh  chapters  of  Ezra,  the  length  of  which  is 
not  estimated  by  the  sacred  historian,  but  which  we  know, 
from  profane  sources  to  have  extended  to  above  half  a  cen 
tury.  (82)  Into  this  interval  foils  the  whole  of  the  reign  of 
Xerxes.  The  Jews  in  Palestine  appear  to  have  led  during 
this  time  a  quiet  and  peaceable  life  under  Persian  govern 
ors,  and  to  have  disarmed  the  hostility  of  their  neighbors 
by  unworthy  compliances,  such  as  intermarriages;3  which 
would  have  tended,  if  unchecked,  to  destroy  their  distinct 
nationality.  No  history  of  the  time  is  given,  because  no 
event  occurred  during  it  of  any  importance  to  the  Jewish 
community  in  Palestine.  It  is  thought,  however,  by  many 
—  and  on  the  whole  it  is  not  improbable  —  that  the  history 
related  in  the  Book  of  Esther  belongs  to  the  interval  in 
question,  and  thus  fills  up  the  gap  in  the  narrative  of  Ezra. 
The  name  Ahasuerus  is  undoubtedly  the  proper  Hebrew 
equivalent  for  the  Persian  word  which  the  Greeks  repre 
sented  by  Xerxes.  (83)  And  if  it  was  Kish,  the  ancestor  of 
Mordecai  in  the  fourth  degree,  who  was  carried  away  from 
Jerusalem  by  Nebuchadnezzar,  together  with  Jeconiah,4  the 
time  of  Xerxes  would  be  exactly  that  in  which  Mordecai 
ought  to  have  flourished.  (84)  Assuming  on  these  grounds 
the  king  intended  by  Ahasuerus  to  be  the  Xerxes  of  Greek 
history,  we  are  at  once  struck  with  the  strong  resemblance 
which  his  character  bears  to  that  assigned  by  the  classical 
writers  to  the  celebrated  son  of  Darius.  Proud,  self-willed, 
amorous,  careless  of  contravening  Persian  customs ;  reck 
less  of  human  life,  yet  not  actually  bloodthirsty ;  impetu- 

1  Ezra  i.  2.  2  Ibid.  vi.  14. 

3  Ibid.  ix.  2,  &c.  4  Esther  ii.  5,  6. 


LECT.  V.        TRUTH   OF  THE   SCRIPTURE  RECORDS.  151 

ous,  facile,  changeable  —  the  Ahasuerus  of  Esther  corre 
sponds  in  all  respects  to  the  Greek  portraiture  of  Xerxes, 
which  is  not  (be  it  observed)  the  mere  picture  of  an  Orien 
tal  despot,  but  has  various  peculiarities  which  distinguish  it 
even  from  the  other  Persian  kings,  and  which  —  I  think  it 
maybe  said — individualize  it.  Nor  is  there  —  as  might 
so  easily  have  been  the  case,  were  the  book  of  Esther  a 
romance  —  any  contradiction  between  its  facts  and  those 
which,  the  Greeks  have  recorded  of  Xerxes.  The  third 
year  of  his  reign,  when  Ahasuerus  makes  his  great  feast  at 
Shushan  (or  Susa)  to  his  nobles,1  was  a  year  which  Xerxes 
certainly  passed  at  Susa,  (85>  and  one  wherein  it  is  likely 
that  he  kept  open  house  for  "  the  princes  of  the  provinces," 
who  would  from  time  to  time  visit  the  court,  in  order  to 
report  on  the  state  of  their  preparations  for  the  Greek  war. 
The  seventh  year,  wherein  Esther  is  made  queen,2  is  that 
which  follows  the  return  of  Xerxes  from  Greece,  where 
again  we  know  from  the  best  Greek  authority  f86)  that  he 
resumed  his  residence  at  Susa.  It  is  true  that  "  after  this 
time  history  speaks  of  other  favorites  and  another  wife  of 
Xerxes,  namely  Arnestris,"  (87)  who  can  scarcely  have  been 
Esther/88)  since  the  Greeks  declare  that  she  was  the 
daughter  of  a  Persian  noble ;  — but  it  is  quite  possible  that 
Amestris  may  have  been  in  disgrace  for  a  time,  and  that 
Esther  may  have  been  temporarily  advanced  to  the  dig 
nity  of  Sultana.  We  know  far  too  little  of  the  domestic 
history  of  Xerxes  from  profane  sources  to  pronounce  the 
position  which  Esther  occupies  in  his  harem  impossible 
or  improbable.  True  again  that  profane  history  tells  us 
nothing  of  Ilaman  or  Mordecai  —  but  we  have  absolutely 
no  profane  information  on  the  subject  of  who  were  the 
great  officers  of  the  Persian  court,  or  who  had  influence 
with  Xerxes  after  the  death  of  Mardonius. 

1  Esther  i.  2,  3.  2  Ibid.  ii.  16. 


152  HISTORICAL  EVIDENCES  OP  THE  LECT.  V. 

The  intimate  acquaintance  which  the  Book  of  Esther 
shows  in  many  passages  with  Persian  manners  and  cus 
toms,  has  been  acknowledged  even  by  De  Wette,  (8Q)  who 
regards  it  as  composed  in  Persia  on  that  account.  I  think 
it  may  be  said  that  we  have  nowhere  else  so  graphic  or  so 
just  a  portraiture  of  the  Persian  court,  such  as  it  was  in 
the  earlier  part  of  the  period  of  decline,  which  followed 
upon  the  death  of  Darius.  The  story  of  the  Book  is  no 
doubt  in  its  leading  features  —  the  contemplated  massacre 
of  the  Jews,  and  the  actual  slaughter  of  their  adversaries — 
wonderful  and  antecedently  improbable;  but  these  are 
exactly  the  points  of  which  the  commemorative  festival  of 
Purim  is  the  strongest  possible  corroboration.  And  it 
may  lessen  the  seeming  improbability  to  bear  in  mind  that 
open  massacres  of  obnoxious  persons  were  not  unknown  to 
the  Persians  of  Xerxes'  time.  There  had  once  been  a 
general  massacre  of  all  the  Magi  who  could  be  found  ;  (9°) 
and  the  annual  observance  of  this  day,  which  was  known 
as  "  the  Hagophonia,"  would  serve  to  keep  up  the  recollec 
tion  of  the  circumstance. 

Of  Artaxerxes  Longimanus,  the  son  and  successor  of 
Xerxes,  who  appears  both  from  his  name  and  from  his  time 
to  be  the  monarch  under  whom  Ezra  and  Nehemiah  flour 
ished,  (91)  we  have  little  information  from  profane  sources. 
His  character,  as  drawn  by  Ctesias,  is  mild  but  weak,  C92) 
and  sufficiently  harmonizes  with  the  portrait  in  the  first 
chapter  of  Nehemiah.  He  reigned  forty  years  —  a  longer 
time  than  any  Persian  king  but  one;  and  it  is  perhaps 
worthy  of  remark  that  Nehemiah  mentions  his  thirty- 
second  year;1  for  this,  which  is  allowable  in  his  case,  would 
have  involved  a  contradiction  of  profane  history,  had  it 
occurred  in  connection  with  any  other  Persian  king  men 
tioned  in  Scripture,  excepting  only  Darius  Hystaspis. 

1  Nehem.  v.  14  ;  xiii.  6. 


LECT.  V.        TRUTH   OF  THE  SCRIPTURE  RECORDS.  153 

The  Old  Testament  history  here  terminates.  For  the 
space  of  nearly  five  hundred  years  —  from  the  time  of 
Nehemiah  and  Malachi  to  that  of  St.  Paul  —  the  Jews  pos 
sessed  no  inspired  writer ;  and  their  history,  when  recorded 
at  all,  was  related  in  works  which  were  not  regarded  by 
themselves  as  authoritative  or  canonical.  I  am  not  con 
cerned  to  defend  the  historical  accuracy  of  the  Books  of 
Maccabees;  much  less  that  of  Judith  and  the  second 
Esdras,  which  seem  to  be  mere  romances.  (93)  My  task,  so 
far  as  the  Old  Testament  is  concerned,  is  accomplished. 
It  has,  I  believe,  been  shown,  in  the  first  place,  that  the 
sacred  narrative  itself  is  the  production  of  eye-witnesses,  or 
of  those  who  followed  the  accounts  of  eye-witnesses,  and 
therefore  that  it  is  entitled  to  the  acceptance  of  all  those 
who  regard  contemporary  testimony  as  the  main  ground  of 
all  authentic  history.  And  it  has,  secondly,  been  made 
apparent,  that  all  the  evidence  which  we  possess  from  pro 
fane  sources  of  a  really  important  and  trustworthy  charac 
ter  tends  to  confirm  the  truth  of  the  history  delivered 
to  us  in  the  sacred  volume.  The  monumental  records 
of  past  ages  —  Assyrian,  Babylonian,  Egyptian,  Persian, 
Phoenician  —  the  writings  of  historians  who  have  based 
their  histories  on  contemporary  annals,  as  Manetho,  Bero- 
sus,  Dius,  Menander,  Nicolas  of  Damascus  —  the  descrip 
tions  given  by  eye-witnesses  of  the  Oriental  manners  and 
customs  —  the  proofs  obtained  by  modern  research  of  the 
condition  of  art  in  the  time  and  country  —  all  combine  to 
confirm,  illustrate,  and  establish  the  veracity  of  the  writers, 
who  have  delivered  to  us,  in  the  Pentateuch,  in  Joshua, 
Judges,  Samuel,  Kings  and  Chronicles,  Ezra,  Esther,  and 
Kehemiah,  the  history  of  the  chosen  people.  That  history 
stands  firm  against  all  the  assaults  made  upon  it ;  and  the 
more  light  that  is  thrown  by  research  and  discovery  upon 


154  TRUTH  OP  THE   SCRIPTURE  RECORDS.        LECT.  V. 

the  times  and  countries  with  which  it  deals,  the  more 
apparent  becomes  its  authentic  and  matter-of-fact  charac 
ter.  Instead  of  ranging  parallel  with  the  mythical  tradi 
tions  of  Greece  and  Rome,  (with  which  some  delight  to 
compare  it,)  it  stands,  at  the  least,  on  a  par  with  the  ancient 
histories  of  Egypt,  Babylon,  Phoenicia,  and  Assyria ;  which, 
like  it,  were  recorded  from  a  remote  antiquity  by  national 
historiographers.  Sound  criticism  finds  in  the  sacred 
writings  of  the  Jews  documents  belonging  to  the  times  of 
which  they  profess  to  treat,  and  on  a  calm  investigation 
classes  them,  not  with  romantic  poems  or  mythological 
fables,  but  with  the  sober  narratives  of  those  other  ancient 
writers,  who  have  sought  to  hand  down  to  posterity  a  true 
account  of  the  facts  which  their  eyes  have  witnessed.  As 
in  the  New  Testament,  so  in  the  Old,  that  which  the 
writers  "  declare  "  to  the  world  is  in  the  main  "  that  which 
they  have  heard,  which  they  have  seen  with  their  eyes, 
which  they  have  looked  upon,  and  which  their  hands  have 
handled."1  It  is  not  their  object  to  amuse  men,  much  less 
to  impose  on  them  by  any  "  cunningly  devised  fables ; " 2 
but  simply  to  record  facts  and  "  bear  their  witness  to  the 
truth."3 

1  1  John  i.  1.  2  2  Pet.  i.  16.  3  John  xviii.  37. 


LECTURE    VI. 

THAT  "WHICH  WAS  FROM  THE  BEGINNING,  WHICH  WE  HAVE  HEARD, 
WHICH  WE  HAVE  SEEN  WITH  OUR  EYES,  WHICH  WE  HAVE  LOOKED 
UPON,  AND  OUR  HANDS  HAVE  HANDLED,  OF  THE  WORD  OF  LIFE  ; 
(FOR  THE  LIFE  WAS  MANIFESTED,  AND  WE  HAVE  SEEN  IT,  AND  BEAR 
WITNESS,  AND  SHOW  UNTO  YOU  THAT  ETERNAL  LIFE,  WHICH  WAS 
WITH  THE  FATHER,  AND  WAS  MANIFESTED  UNTO  US  ;)  THAT  WHICH 
WE  HAVE  SEEN  AND  HEARD  DECLARE  WE  UNTO  YOU. — 1  JOHN  I.  1-3. 

THE  period  of  time  embraced  by  the  events  of  which  we 
have  any  mention  in  the  New  Testament  but  little  exceeds 
the  lifetime  of  a  man,  falling  short  of  a  full  century.  The 
regular  and  continuous  history  is  comprised  within  a  yet 
narrower  space,  since  it  commences  in  the  year  of  Rome 
748  or  749,  and  terminates  about  sixty-three  years  later,  in 
the  fifth  of  Nero,  Anno  Domini  58.  W  If  uniformity  of  plan 
were  a  thing  of  paramount  importance,  it  would  be  my 
duty  to  subdivide  this  space  of  time  into  three  ^portions, 
which  might  be  treated  separately  in  the  three  remaining 
Lectures  of  the  present  Course.  Such  a  subdivision  could 
be  made  without  any  great  difficulty.  The  century  natu 
rally  breaks  into  three  periods  —  the  time  of  our  Lord's  life, 
or  that  treated  of  in  the  Gospels ;  the  time  of  the  rapid  and 
triumphant  spread  of  Christianity,  or  that  of  which  we  have 
the  history  in  the  Acts ;  and  the  time  of  oppression  and 
persecution  without,  of  defection  and  heresy  within,  or  that 
to  which  we  have  incidental  allusions  in  the  later  Epistles 
and  the  Apocalypse.  Or,  if  we  confined  our  view  to  the 

(155) 


156  HISTORICAL   EVIDENCES   OF   THE  LECT.  VI. 

space  of  time  which  is  covered  by  the  historical  Books,  and 
omitted  the  last  of  these  three  periods  from  our  considera 
tion,  we  might  obtain  a  convenient  division  of  the  second 
period  from  the  actual  arrangement  of  the  Acts,  where  the 
author,  after  occupying  himself  during  twelve  chapters  with 
the  general  condition  of  the  Christian  community,  becomes 
from  the  thirteenth  the  biographer  of  a  single  Apostle, 
whose  career  he  thenceforth  follows  without  interruption. 
But  on  the  wThole  I  think  it  will  be  more  convenient,  at 
some  sacrifice  of  uniformity,  to  regard  the  entire  space 
occupied  by  the  New  Testament  narrative  as  a  single  pe 
riod,  and  to  substitute,  at  the  present  point,  for  the  arrange 
ment  of  time  hitherto  followed,  an  arrangement  based  upon 
a  division  of  the  evidence,  which  here  naturally  separates 
into  three  heads  or  branches.  The  first  of  these  is  the 
internal  evidence,  or  that  of  the  documents  themselves, 
which  I  propose  to  make  the  subject  of  the  present  Lec 
ture;  the  second  is  the  testimony  of  adversaries,  or  that 
borne  by  Heathen  and  Jewish  writers  to  the  veracity  of 
the  narrative ;  the  third  is  the  testimony  of  believers,  or 
that  producible  from  the  uninspired  Christian  remains  of 
the  times  contemporary  with  or  immediately  following  the 
age  of  tlfe  Apostles.  The  two  last  named  branches  will  be 
treated  respectively  in  the  seventh  and  eighth  Lectures. 

The  New  Testament  is  commonly  regarded  too  much  as 
a  single  book,  and  its  testimony  is  scarcely  viewed  as  more 
than  that  of  a  single  writer.  No  doubt,  contemplated  on 
its  divine  side,  the  work  has  a  real  unity,  He  who  is  with 
His  church  "  always " l  having  designed  the  whole  in  His 
Eternal  Counsels,  and  having  caused  it  to  take  the  shape 
that  it  bears ;  but  regarded  as  the  work  of  man,  which  it 
also  is,  the  New  Testament  (it  should  be  remembered)  is  a 

1  Matt,  xxviii.  20. 


LECT.  VI.       TRUTH   OF  THE   SCRIPTURE  RECORDS.  157 

collection  of  twenty-seven  separate  and  independent  docu 
ments,  composed  by  eight  or  nine  different  persons,  at  sep 
arate  times,  and  under  varied  circumstances.  Of  these 
twenty-seven  documents,  twenty-one  consist  of  letters  writ 
ten  by  those  who  were  engaged  in  the  propagation  of  the 
new  Religion  to  their  converts,  four  are  biographies  of 
Christ,  one  is  a  short  Church  History,  containing  a  general 
account  of  the  Christian  community  for  twelve  or  thirteen 
years  after  our  Lord's  ascension,  together  with  a  particular 
account  of  St.  Paul's  doings  for  about  fourteen  years  after 
wards  ;  and  one  is  prophetical,  containing  (as  is  generally 
supposed)  a  sketch  of  the  future  state  and  condition  of  the 
Christian  Church  from  the  close  of  the  first  century,  when 
it  was  written,  to  the  end  of  the  world.  It  is  with  the  his 
torical  Books  that  we  are  in  the  present  review  primarily 
concerned.  I  wish  to  show  that  *for  the  Scriptural  narra 
tive  of  the  birth,  life,  death,  resurrection,  and  ascension  of 
Christ,  as  well  as  for  the  circumstances  of  the  first  preach 
ing  of  the  Gospel,  the  historical  evidence  that  we  possess  is 
of  an  authentic  and  satisfactory  character. 

As  with  that  document  which  is  the  basis  of  Judaism,^ 
so  with  those  which  are  the  basis  of  Christianity,  it  is  of 
very  great  interest  and  importance  to  know  by  whom  they 
were  written.  If  the  history  was  recorded  by  eye-wit 
nesses,  or  even  by  persons  contemporaneous  with  the 
events  narrated,  then  it  is  allowed  on  all  hands  that  the 
record  containing  it  must  have  a  very  strong  claim  indeed 
to  our  acceptance.  "But  the  alleged  ocular  testimony," 
we  are  told,  "  or  proximity  in  point  of  time  to  the  events 
recorded,  is  mere  assumption  —  an  assumption  originat 
ing  from  the  titles  which  the  Biblical  books  bear  in  our 
Canon."  (3>  "Little  reliance,  however,  can  be  placed  on 
these  titles,  or  on  the  headings  of  ancient  manuscripts 

14 


158  HISTORICAL  EVIDENCES   OP  THE  LECT.  VI. 

generally."(4>  "  The  early  Jewish  and  Christian  writers  — 
even  the  most  reputable  —  published  their  works  with  the 
substitution  of  venerated  names,  without  an  idea  that  they 
were  guilty  of  falsehood  or  deception  by  so  doing."  (5)  In 
"sacred  records"  and  "biblical  books"  this  species  of  for 
gery  obtained  "more  especially;"^)  and  the  title  of  works 
of  this  kind  is  scarcely  any  evidence  at  all  of  the  real 
authorship.  Further,  the  actual  titles  of  our  Gospels  are 
not  to  be  regarded  as  intended  to  assert  the  composition 
of  the  Gospel  by  the  person  named ;  all  that  they  mean  to 
assert  is,  the  composition  of  the  connected  history  "  after 
the  oral  discourses,  or  notes,"  of  the  person  named  in  the 
title.  This  is  the  true  original  meaning  of  the  word  trans 
lated  by  "  according  to  ; "  which  is  improperly  understood 
as  implying  actual  authorship.  (7) 

Such  are  the  assertions ^with  which  we  are  met,  when  we 
urge  that  for  the  events  of  our  Lord's  life  we  have  the  tes 
timony  of  eye-witnesses,  whose  means  of  knowing  the  truth 
were  of  the  highest  order,  and  whose  honesty  is  unim 
peachable.  These  assertions  (which  I  have  given  as  nearly 
as  possible  in  the  words  of  Strauss)  consist  of  a  series  of  po 
sitions  either  plainly  false,  or  at  best  without  either  proof  or 
likelihood  ;  yet  upon  these  the  modern  Rationalism  is  con 
tent  to  base  its  claim  to  supersede  Christianity.  This  end 
it  openly  avows,  and  it  admits  that,  to  make  its  claim  good, 
the  positions  above  given  should  be  established.  Let  us 
then  consider  briefly  the  several  assertions  upon  which  we 
are  invited  to  exchange  the  Religion  of  Christ  for  that  of 
Strauss  and  Schleiermacher. 

It  is  said,  that  "the  alleged  ocular  testimony  is  an 
assumption  originating  from  the  titles  which  the  Biblical 
books  bear  in  our  Canon."  I  do  not  know  if  any  stress  is 
intended  to  be  laid  on  the  last  clause  of  this  objection;  but 


LECT.  VI.       TRUTH   OF  THE  SCRIPTURE  RECORDS.  159 

as  it  might  mislead  the  unlearned,  I  may  observe  in  pass 
ing,  that  the  titles  which  the  Books  bear  in  the  modern 
authorized  versions  of  the  Scriptures  are  literal  translations 
from  some  of  the  most  ancient  Greek  manuscripts,  and 
descend  to  us  at  least  from  the  times  of  the  first  Councils ; 
while  titles  still  more  emphatic  and  explicit  are  found  in 
several  of  the  versions  which  were  made  at  an  early 
period.  (8)  Our  belief  in  the  authorship  of  the  writings,' 
no  doubt,  rests  partly  on  the  titles,  as  does  our  belief  in 
the  authorship  of  every  ancient  treatise ;  but  it  is  untrue  to 
say  that  these  headings  first  originated  the  belief-,  for 
before  the  titles  were  attached,  the  belief  must  have 
existed.  In  truth,  there  is  not  the  slightest  pretence  for 
insinuating  that  there  was  ever  any  doubt  as  to  the  author 
ship  of  any  one  of  the  historical  books  of  the  New  Testa 
ment  ;  which  are  as  uniformly  ascribed  to  the  writers 
whose  names  they  bear  as  the  Return  of  the  Ten  Thou 
sand  to  Xenophon,  or  the  Lives  of  the  Ca3sars  to  Sueto 
nius.  There  is  indeed  far  letter  evidence  of  authorship  in 
the  case  of  the  four  Gospels  and  of  the  Acts  of  the  Apos 
tles,  than  exists  with  respect  to  the  works  of  almost  any 
classical  writer.  It  is  a  very  rare  occurrence  for  classical 
works  to  be  distinctly  quoted,  or  for  their  authors  to  be 
mentioned  by  name,  within  a  century  of  the  time  of  their 
publication.  (9)  The  Gospels,  as  we  shall  find  in  the  sequel, 
arc  frequently  quoted  within  this  period,  and  the  writers  of 
three  at  least  out  of  the  four  are  mentioned  within  the 
time  as  authors  of  works  corresponding  perfectly  to  those 
which  have  come  down  to  us  as  their  compositions.  Our 
conviction  then  of  the  genuineness  of  the  Gospels  does  not 
rest  exclusively,  or  even  mainly,  on  the  titles,  but  on  the 
unanimous  consent  of  ancient  writers  and  of  the  whole 
Christian  church  in  the  first  ages. 


160  HISTORICAL   EVIDENCES   OP   THE  LECT.  VI. 

In  the  next  place  we  are  told  that  "  little  reliance  can  be 
placed  on  the  headings  of  ancient  manuscripts  generally." 
Undoubtedly,  such  headings,  when  unconfirmed  by  fur 
ther  testimony,  are  devoid  of  any  great  weight,  and  may 
be  set  aside,  if  the  internal  evidence  of  the  writings  them 
selves  disproves  the  superscription.  Still  they  constitute 
important  primd  facie  evidence  of  authorship ;  and  it  is  to 
be  presumed  that  they  are  correct,  until  solid  reasons  be 
shown  to  the  contrary.  The  headings  of  ancient  manu 
scripts  are,  in  point  of  fact,  generally  accepted  as  correct 
by  critics ;  and  the  proportion,  among  the  works  of  an 
tiquity,  of  those  reckoned  spurious  to  those  regarded  as 
genuine,  is  small  indeed. 

But  it  is  said  that  in  the  case  of  "  sacred  records "  and 
"biblical  books"  the  headings  are  "especially"  untrust 
worthy.  This,  we  are  told,  "  is  evident,  and  has  long  since 
been  proved."  (10)  Where  the  proof  is  to  be  found,  we  are 
not  informed,  nor  whence  the  peculiar  untrustworthiness 
of  what  is  "  sacred "  and  "  biblical "  proceeds.  We  are 
referred,  however,  to  the  cases  of  the  Pentateuch,  the  book 
of  Daniel,  and  a  certain  number  of  the  Psalms,  as  well 
known  instances ;  and  we  shall  probably  not  be  wrong  in 
assuming  that  these  are  selected  as  the  most  palpable  cases 
of  incorrect  ascription  of  books  which  the  Sacred  Volume 
furnishes.  We  have  already  found  reason  to  believe  that 
in  regard  to  the  Pentateuch  and  the  book  of  Daniel  no 
mistake  has  been  committed  ;  (n>  they  are  the  works  of  the 
authors  whose  names  they  bear.  But  in  the  case  of  the 
Psalms,  it  must  be  allowed  that  the  headings  seem  fre 
quently  to  be  incorrect.  Headings,  it  must  be  remem 
bered,  are  in  no  case  any  part  of  the  inspired  Word ;  they 
indicate  merely  the  opinion  of  those  who  had  the  custody 
of  the  Word  at  the  time  when  they  were  prefixed.  Xow 


LECT.  VI.       TRUTH   OP   THE   SCRIPTURE   RECORDS.  161 

in  most  cases  the  headings  would  be  attached  soon  after 
the  composition  of  the  work,  when  its  authorship  was 
certainly  known ;  but  the  Psalms  do  not  appear  to  have 
been  collected  into  a  book  until  the  time  of  Ezra,  C12)  and 
the  headings  of  many  may  have  been  then  first  affixed, 
those  who  attached  them  following  a  vague  tradition  or 
venturing  upon  conjecture.  Thus  error  has  here  crept  in ; 
but  on  this  ground  to  assume  that  "  sacred  records"  have  a 
peculiar  untrustworthiness  in  this  respect,  is  to  betray  an 
irreligious  spirit,  and  to  generalize  upon  very  insufficient 
data. 

But,  it  is  said,  "  the  most  reputable  authors  amongst  the 
Jews  and  early  Christians  published  their  works  with  the 
substitution  of  venerated  names,  without  an  idea  that  they 
were  guilty  of  falsehood  or  deception  by  so  doing."  What 
is  the  proof  of  this  astounding  assertion  ?  What  early 
Christian  authors,  reputable  or  no,  can  be  shown  to  have 
thus  acted  ?  If  the  allusion  is  to  the  epistles  of  Hennas 
and  Barnabas,  it  must  be  observed  that  the  genuineness  of 
these  is  still  matter  of  dispute  among  the  learned ;  if  to 
such  works  as  the  Clementines,  the  interpolated  Ignatius, 
and  the  like,  that  they  are  not  "early"  in  the  sense  implied, 
for  they  belong  probably  to  the  third  century.  (13)  The 
practice  noted  was  common  among  heretical  sects  from  the 
first,  but  it  was  made  a  reproach  to  them  by  the  ortho 
dox  ;  (14)  who  did  not  themselves  adopt  it  till  the  teaching 
of  the  Alexandrian  School  had  confused  the  boundaries  of 
right  and  wrong,  and  made  "  pious  frauds  "  appear  defensi 
ble.  There  is  no  reason  to  suppose  that  any  orthodox 
Christian  of  the  first  century  —  when  it  is  granted  that  our 
Gospels  were  written  —  would  have  considered  himself 
entitled  to  bring  out  under  a  "  venerated  name "  a  work  of 
his  own  composition. 

14* 


162  HISTORICAL   EVIDENCES    OF   THE  LECT.  VI. 

Lastly,  it  is  urged,  "the  titles  of  our  Gospels  are  not 
intended  to  assert  the  composition  of  the  works  by  the  per 
sons  named,  but  only  their  being  based  upon  a  groundwork 
furnished  by  such  persons,  either  orally,  or  in  the  shape  of 
written  notes."  C15)  "  This  seems  to  be  the  original  meaning 
attached  to  the  word  x«ru,"  we  are  told.  No  example, 
however,  is  adduced  of  this  use,  which  is  certainly  not  that 
of  the  Septuagint,  where  the  book  of  Nehemiah  is  referred 
to  under  the  name  of  "The  Commentaries  according  to 
Nehemiah ; " l  and  it  cannot  be  shown  to  have  obtained  at 
any  period  of  the  Greek  language. 

It  cannot  therefore  be  asserted  with  any  truth  that  the 
titles  of  the  Gospels  do  not  represent  them  as  the  composi 
tions  of  the  persons  named  therein.  Nothing  is  more  cer 
tain  than  that  the  object  of  affixing  titles  to  the  Gospels  at 
all  was  to  mark  the  opinion  entertained  of  their  authorship. 
This  opinion  appears  to  have  been  universal.  We  find  no 
evidence  of  any  doubt  having  ever  existed  on  the  subject 
in  the  early  ages.t16)  Irenanis,  Tertullian,  Clement  of  Alex 
andria,  and  Origen,  writers  in  the  latter  half  of  the  second 
or  the  beginning  of  the  third  century,  not  only  declare  the 
authorship  unreservedly,  but  indicate  or  express  the  univer 
sal  agreement  of  the  Church  from  the  first  upon  the  sub 
ject.  (17>  Justin,  in  the  middle  of  the  second  century,  speaks 
of  the  "Gospels"  which  the  Christians  read  in  their 
Churches,  as  having  been  composed  "  by  the  Apostles  of 
Christ  and  their  companions;"  and  he  further  shows  by 
his  quotations,  which  are  abundant,  that  he  means  the  Gos 
pels  now  in  our  possession.  (18)  Papias,  a  quarter  of  a  cen 
tury  earlier,  mentions  the  Gospels  of  St.  Matthew  and  St. 
Mark  as  authoritative,  and  declares  the  latter  writer  to  have 
derived  his  materials  from  St.  Peter.  Thus  we  are  brought 

1  2  Mac.  ii.  13. 


LECT.  VI.       TRUTH  OF  THE  SCRIPTURE  RECORDS.  163 

to  the  very  age  of  the  Apostles  themselves;  forPapias  was 
a  disciple  of  St.  John  the  Evangelist,  (19) 

Further,  in  the  case  of  three  out  of  the  five  Historical 
Books  of  the  New  Testament,  there  is  an  internal  testimony 
to  their  composition  by  contemporaries,  which  is  of  the  last 
importance.  "And  he  that  saw  it"  says  St.  John,  " bare 
record,  and  his  record  is  true,  and  he  knoweth  that  he  saith 
true,  that  ye  may  believe." l  And  again,  still  more  expli 
citly,  after  speaking  of  himself  and  of  the  circumstances 
which  caused  it  to  be  thought  that  he  would  not  die  — 
"  This  is  the  disciple  which  testifieth  of  these  things  and 
wrote  these  things :  and  we  know  that  his  testimony  is 
true."2  Either  therefore  St.  John  must  be  allowed  to  have 
been  the  writer  of  the  fourth  Gospel,  or  the  writer  must  be 
taxed  with  that  "conscious  intention  of  fiction,"  which 
Strauss  with  impious  boldness  has  ventured  to  allege 
against  him.  (2°) 

That  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles  and  the  third  Gospel  have 
"  a  testimony  of  a  particular  kind,"  which  seems  to  give 
them  a  special  claim  to  be  accepted  as  the  works  of  a  con 
temporary,  is  admitted  even  by  this  Prince  of  Sceptics. 
The  writer  of  the  Acts,  he  allows,  "  by  the  use  of  the  first 
person  identifies  himself  with  the  companion  of  St.  Paul," 
and  the  prefaces  of  the  two  books  make  it  plain  that  they 
"proceeded  from  the  same  author." (21)  This  evidence  is  felt 
to  be  so  strong,  that  even  Strauss  does  not  venture  to  deny 
that  a  companion  of  St.  Paul  may  have  written  the  two 
works.  He  finds  it  "difficult"  to  believe  that  this  was  act 
ually  the  case,  and  "suspects"  that  the  passages  of  the  Acts 
where  the  first  person  is  used  "  belong  to  a  distinct  memo 
rial  by  another  hand,  which  the  author  of  the  Acts  has 
incorporated  into  his  history."  But  still  he  allows  the 

1  John  xix.  3o.  2  Ibid.  xxi.  24. 


164  HISTORICAL  EVIDENCES  OP  THE          LECT.  VI. 

alternative  —  that  "  it  is  possible  the  companion  of  Paul 
may  have  composed  the  two  works"  —  only  it  must  have 
been  "  at  a  time  when  he  was  no  longer  protected  by  apos 
tolic  influence  from  the  tide  of  tradition,"  and  so  was 
induced  to  receive  into  his  narrative,  and  join  with  what 
he  had  heard  from  the  apostle,  certain  marvellous  (and 
therefore  incredible)  stories  which  had  no  solid  or  substan 
tial  basis.  C22)  To  the  objection  that  the  Acts  appear,  from 
the  fact  of  their  terminating  where  they  do,  to  have  been 
composed  at  the  close  of  St.  Paul's  first  imprisonment 
at  Rome,  A.  D.  58,  (or  A.  D.  63,  according  to  some  C23) 
writers,)  and  that  the  Gospel,  as  being  "the  former  trea 
tise,"  l  was  written  earlier,  Strauss  replies,  "  that  the  break 
ing  off  of  the  Acts  at  that  particular  point  might  have  been 
the  result  of  many  other  causes;  and  that,  at  all  events, 
such  testimony  standing  alone  is  wholly  insufficient  to  de 
cide  the  historical  worth  of  the  Gospel."  (24>  He  thus 
assumes  that  the  testimony  "  stands  alone,"  forgetting  or 
ignoring  the  general  voice  of  antiquity  on  the  subject  of 
the  date  and  value  of  the  Gospel,  t25)  while  he  also  omits  to 
notice  the  other  important  evidence  of  an  early  date  which 
the  Gospel  itself  furnishes  —  the  declaration,  namely,  in  the 
preface  that  what  St.  Luke  wrote  was  delivered  to  him  by 
those  "  which  from  the  beginning  were  eye-witnesses  and 
ministers  of  the  Word."2 

If  the  third  Gospel  be  allowed  to  have  been  composed 
by  one  who  lived  in  the  apostolic  age  and  companied  with 
the  apostles,  then  an  argument  for  the  early  date  of  the 
first  and  second  will  arise  from  their  accordance  with  the 
third  —  their  resemblance  to  it  in  style  and  general  char 
acter,  and  their  diversity  from  the  productions  of  any  other 
period.  The  first  three  Gospels  belong  so  entirely  to  the 

1  Acts  i.  1.  2  Luke  i.  2. 


LECT.  VI.       TRUTH   OF  THE   SCRIPTURE  RECORDS.  165 

same  school  of  thought,  and  the  same  type  and  stage  of 
language,  that  on  critical  grounds  they  must  be  regarded 
as  the  works  of  contemporaries ;  while  in  their  contents 
they  are  at  once  so  closely  accordant  with  one  another,  and 
so  full  of  little  differences,  that  the  most  reasonable  view 
to  take  of  their  composition  is  that  it  was  almost  simul 
taneous.  (26)  Thus  the  determination  of  any  one  out  of  the 
three  to  the  apostolic  age  involves  a  similar  conclusion 
with  respect  to  the  other  two ;  and  if  the  Gospel  ascribed 
to  St.  Luke  be  allowed  to  be  probably  his,  there  can  be  no 
reason  to  question  the  tradition  which  assigns  the  others  to 
St.  Matthew  and  St.  Mark. 

On  the  whole,  therefore,  we  have  abundant  reason  to  be 
lieve  that  the  four  Gospels  are  the  works  of  persons  who 
lived  at  the  time  when  Christianity  was  first  preached  and 
established.  Two  of  the  writers  —  St.  Luke  and  St.  John 
—  fix  their  own  date,  which  must  be  accepted  on  their 
authority,  unless  we  will  pronounce  them  impostors.  The 
two  others  appear  alike  by  their  matter  and  their  manner 
to  be  as  early  as  St.  Luke,  and  are  certainly  earlier  than 
St.  John,  whose  Gospel  is  supplemental  to  the  other  three, 
and  implies  their  preexistence.  Nor  is  there  any  reason 
able  ground  for  doubting  the  authorship  which  Christian 
antiquity  with  one  voice  declares  to  us,  and  in  which  the 
titles  of  the  earliest  manuscripts  and  of  the  most  ancient 
versions  agree.  The  four  Gospels  are  assigned  to  those 
four  persons,  whom  the  Church  has  always  honored  as 
Evangelists,  on  grounds  very  much  superior  to  those  on 
which  the  bulk  of  classical  works  are  ascribed  to  particular 
authors.  The  single  testimony  of  Irenasus  is  really  of  more 
weight  than  the  whole  array  of  witnesses  commonly  mar 
shalled  in  proof  of  the  genuineness  of  an  ancien-t  classic ; 
and,  even  if  it  stood  alone,  might  fairly  be  regarded  as 


166  HISTORICAL  EVIDENCES  OP  THE  LECT.  VI. 

placing  the  question  of  the  authorship  beyond  all  reason 
able  doubt  or  suspicion. 

If  then  the  Gospels  are  genuine,  what  a  wonderful  his 
torical  treasure  do  we  possess  in  them !  Four  biographies 
of  the  great  Founder  of  our  religion  by  contemporary 
pens,  two  of  them  the  productions  of  close  friends  —  the 
other  two  written  by  those  who,  if  they  had  no  personal 
acquaintance  with  the  Saviour,  at  least  were  the  constant 
companions  of  such  as  had  had  intimate  knowledge  of 
Him.  How  rarely  do  we  obtain  even  two  distinct  original 
biographies  of  a  distinguished  person !  In  the  peculiar  and 
unexampled  circumstances  of  the  time  it  is  not  surprising 
that  many  undertook  to  "  set  forth  in  order  a  declaration 
of  the  things  " l  which  constituted  the  essence  of  the  new 
religion,  namely,  the  life  and  teaching  of  Christ ;  but  it  is 
remarkable,  and  I  think  it  may  fairly  be  said  to  be  provi 
dential,  that  four  accounts  should  have  been  written  pos 
sessing  claims  to  attention  so  nearly  equal,  that  the  Church 
felt  bound  to  adopt  all  into  her  Canon,  w^hence  it  has  hap 
pened  that  they  have  all  come  down  to  us.  We  should 
have  expected,  alike  on  the  analogy  of  the  Old  Testa 
ment,  C27)  and  on  grounds  of  a  priori  probability,  a  single 
record.  If  an  authentic  account  had  been  published  early 
—  that  is,  before  the  separation  of  the  Apostles,  and  the 
formation  of  distinct  Christian  communities  —  it  is  probable 
that  no  second  account  would  have  been  written,  or  at  any 
rate  no  second  account  confirmatory  to  any  great  extent  of 
the  preceding  one.  A  supplementary  Gospel,  like  that  of 
St.  John,  might  of  course  have  been  added  in  any  case ; 
but  had  the  Gospel  of  St.  Matthew,  for  instance,  been 
really  composed,  as  some  have  imagined,  (28)  within  a  few 
years  of  our  Lord's  ascension,  it  would  have  been  carried 

1  Luke  i.  1. 


LECT.  VI.      TRUTH   OF   THE   SCRIPTURE  RECORDS.  1GT 

together  with  Christianity  into  all  parts  of  the  world ;  and 
it  is  very  unlikely  that  in  that  case  the  Gospels  of  St.  Mark 
and  St.  Luke,  which  cover  chiefly  the  same  ground,  would 
have  been  written.  The  need  of  written  Gospels  was  not 
felt  at  first,  while  the  Apostles  and  companions  of  Christ 
were  in  full  vigor,  and  were  continually  moving  from  place 
to  place,  relating  with  all  the  fulness  and  variety  of  oral 
discourse  the  marvels  which  they  had  seen  wrought,  and 
the  gracious  words  which  they  had  heard  uttered  by  their 
Master.  But  as  they  grew  old,  and  as  the  sphere  of  their 
labors  enlarged,  and  personal  superintendence  of  the  whole 
Church  by  the  Apostolic  body  became  difficult,  the  desire 
to  possess  a  written  Gospel  arose ;  and  simultaneously,  in 
different  parts  of  the  Church,  for  different  portions  of  the 
Christian  body,  the  three  Gospels  of  St.  Matthew,  St.  Mark, 
and  St.  Luke,  were  published.  This  at  least  seems  to  be 
the  theory  which  alone  suits  the  phenomena  of  the 
case ;  (29>  and  as  it  agrees  nearly  with  the  testimony  of  Ire- 
nseus,  (30>  who  is  the  earliest  authority  with  regard  to  the 
time  at  which  the  Gospels  were  composed,  it  is  well 
deserving  of  acceptance. 

If  this  view  of  the  independent  and  nearly  simultaneous 
composition  of  the  first  three  Gospels  be  admitted,  then  we 
must  be  allowed  to  possess  in  their  substantial  agreement 
respecting  the  life,  character,  teaching,  miracles,  prophetic 
announcements,  sufferings,  death,  resurrection,  and  ascen 
sion  of  our  Lord,  (31)  evidence  of  the  most  important  kind, 
and  such  as  is  scarcely  ever  attainable  with  respect  to 
the  actions  of  an  -individual.  Attempts  have  been  made 
from  time  to  time,  and  recently  on  a  large  scale,  to  inval 
idate  this  testimony  by  establishing  the  existence  of  mi 
nute  points  of  disagreement  between  the  accounts  of  the 
three  Evangelists.  C32)  But  the  differences  adduced  consist 


168  HISTORICAL   EVIDENCES   OF   THE          LECT.  VI. 

almost  entirely  of  omissions  by  one  Evangelist  of  what  is 
mentioned  by  another,  such  omissions  being  regarded  by 
Strauss  as  equivalent  to  direct  negatives.  (33)  The  weak 
character  of  the  argument  a  silentio  is  now  admitted  by  all 
tolerable  critics,  who  have  ceased  to  lean  upon  it  with  any 
feeling  of  security  except  under  very  peculiar  circum 
stances.  In  ordinary  cases,  and  more  particularly  in  cases 
where  brevity  has  been  studied,  mere  silence  proves  abso 
lutely  nothing;  and  to  make  it  equivalent  to  counter- 
assertion  is  to  confuse  two  things  wholly  different,  and  to 
exhibit  a  want  of  critical  discernment,  such  as  must  in  the 
eyes  of  all  reasonable  persons  completely  discredit  the 
writer  who  is  so  unfair  or  so  ill-judging.  Yet  this,  I  con 
fidently  affirm,  is  the  ordinary  manner  of  Strauss,  who 
throughout  his  volumes  conceives  himself  at  liberty  to 
discard  facts  recorded  by  one  Evangelist  only  on  the  mere 
ground  of  silence  on  the  part  of  the  others.  Whatever  an 
Evangelist  does  not  record,  he  is  argued  not  to  have 
known ;  and  his  want  of  knowledge  is  taken  as  a  proof  that 
the  event  could  not  have  happened.  It  seems  to  be  for 
gotten,  that,  in  the  first  place,  eye-witnesses,  of  one  and  the 
same  event  notice  a  different  portion  of  the  attendant  cir 
cumstances  ;  and  that,  secondly,  those  who  record  an  event 
which  they  have  witnessed  omit  ordinarily,  for  brevity's 
sake,  by  far  the  greater  portion  of  the  attendant  circum 
stances  which  they  noticed  at  the  time  and  still  remember. 
Strauss's  cavils  could  only  have  been  precluded  by  the 
mere  repetition  on  the  part  of  each  Evangelist  of  the  exact 
circumstances  mentioned  by  every  other  —  a  repetition 
which  would  have  been  considered  to  mark  collusion  or 
or  unacknowledged  borrowing,  and  which  would  have  thus 
destroyed  their  value  as  distinct  and  independent  wit 
nesses. 


LECT.  VI.       TRUTH  OP  TPIE   SCRIPTURE  RECORDS.  169 

It  has  been  well  observed,  (34)  that,  even  if  all  the  diffi 
culties  and  discrepancies,  which  this  writer  has  thought  to 
discover  in  the  Gospels,  were  real  and  not  merely  apparent 
—  if  we  were  obliged  to  leave  them  as  difficulties,  and 
could  offer  no  explanation  of  them  (35)  —  still  the  general 
credibility  of  the  Gospel  History  would  remain  untouched, 
and  no  more  would  be  proved  than  the  absence  of  that 
complete  inspiration  which  the  Church  has  always  believed 
to  attach  to  the  Evangelical  writings.  The  writers  would 
be  lowered  from  their  preeminent  rank  as  perfect  and  infal 
lible  historians,  whose  every  word  may  be  depended  on ; 
but  they  would  remain  historical  authorities  of  the  first 
order — witnesses  as  fully  to  be  trusted  for  the  circum 
stances  of  our  Lord's  life,  as  Xenophon  for  the  sayings  and 
doings  of  Socrates,  or  Cavendish  for  those  of  Cardinal 
Wolsey.  The  facts  of  the  miracles,  preaching,  sufferings, 
death,  resurrection,  and  ascension,  would  therefore  stand 
firm,  together  with  those  of  the  choice  of  the  Apostles,  the 
commission  given  them,  and  the  communication  to  them  of 
miraculous  powers ;  and  these  are  the  facts  which  establish 
Christianity,  and  form  its  historical  basis  —  a  basis  which 
can  be  overthrown  by  nothing  short  of  a  proof  that  the 
New  Testament  is  a  forgery  from  beginning  to  end,  or  that 
the  first  preachers  of  Christianity  were  a  set  of  impostors. 

For  the  truth  of  the  Gospel  facts  does  not  rest  solely 
upon  the  Gospels  —  they  are  stated  with  almost  equal  dis 
tinctness  in  the  Acts,  and  are  implied  in  the  Epistles.  It 
is  not  denied  that  a  companion  of  St.  Paul  may  have  writ 
ten  the  account  of  the  early  spread  of  the  Gospel  which  is 
contained  in  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles.  But  the  Acts 
assume  as  indisputable  the  whole  series  of  facts  which  form 
the  basis  on  which  Christianity  sustains  itself.  They  set 
forth  "Jesus  of  Nazareth,  a  man  approved  of  God  by 

15 


170  HISTORICAL  EVIDENCES  OF  THE  LECT.  VL 

miracles  and  wonders  and  signs,  which  God  did  by  Him. 
in  the  midst  of  you,  as  you  yourselves  also  know"1  —  a 
man  "who  went  about  doing  good,  and  healing  all  that 
were  oppressed  of  the  devil"2  —  who  "beginning  from 
Galilee,  after  the  baptism  which  John  preached,  published 
the  word  throughout  all  Judaea ; 3  whom  yet  "  they  that 
dwelt  at  Jerusalem,  and  their  rulers,  because  they  knew 
him  not,  nor  yet  the  voices  of  the  Prophets  which  are  read 
every  Sabbath  day,  condemned,  finding  no  cause  of  death 
in  him,  yet  desiring  of  Pilate  that  he  should  be  slain  " 4  — 
who  was  "  taken  and  crucified  by  wicked  hands " 5  — 
"hanged  upon  a  tree  and  slain"6 — then  "taken  down  from 
the  tree  and  laid  in  a  sepulchre," 7  but  "  raised  up  the  third 
day,  and  showed  openly," 8  "  by  many  infallible  proofs 
during  the  space  of  forty  days," 9  "  not  to  all  the  people, 
but  unto  witnesses  chosen  before  of  God,  who  did  eat  and 
drink  with  him  after  he  rose  from  the  dead  " 10  —  and  who, 
finally,  "while  his  disciples  beheld,  was  taken  up  into 
heaven,  a  cloud  receiving  him  out  of  their  sight."  u  The 
Acts  further  show  that  to  the  chosen  "  witnesses "  —  the 
Apostles  to  whom  "  the  promise  of  the  Father  " 12  had  been 
given,  and  to  those  whom  they  associated  with  them  in  the 
direction  of  the  infant  Church  miraculous  gifts  were  commu 
nicated,  so  that  they  prophesied,13  cured  lameness  by  a  word 
or  a  touch,14  spake  languages  of  which  they  had  no  natural 
knowledge,15  restored  the  bedridden  to  health,16  handled 
serpents,17  cast  out  devils,18  inflicted  blindness,19  raised  the 

1  Acts  ii.  22.  2  Ibid.  x.  38.  3  Ibid,  verse  37. 

4  Ibid.  xiii.  27-8.  5  Ibid.  ii.  23.  6  Ibid.  x.  39. 

7  Ibid.  xiii.  29.  8  Ibid.  x.  40.  9  Ibid.  i.  3. 

10  Ibid.  x.  41.  »  Ibid.  i.  9,  10.  12  Ibid,  verse  4. 
13  Ibid.  v.  9  ;  vi.  27,  &c.       "  Ibid.  xiv.  10,  and  iii.  7. 

15  Ibid.  ii.  4-13.  16  Ibid.  ix.  34.  "  Ibid,  xxviii.  5. 

18  Ibid.  xvi.  18,  &c.  19  Ibid.  xiii.  11. 


LECT.  VI.   TRUTH  OF  THE  SCRIPTURE  RECORDS.       171 

dead  to  life,1  and  finally  even  in  some  cases  cured  men  by 
the  touch  of  their  shadows 2  or  by  handkerchiefs  and  aprons 
from  their  persons.3 

The  substantial  truth  of  the  history  contained  in  the 
Acts  —  so  far  at  least  as  it  concerns  St.  Paul  —  has  been 
excellently  vindicated,  by  a  writer  of  our  own  nation  and 
communion,  from  the  undesigned  conformity  between  the 
narrative  and  the  Epistles  ascribed  to  the  great  Apostle. 
Without  assuming  the  genuineness  of  those  Epistles,  Paley 
has  most  unanswerably  shown,  that  the  peculiar  nature  of 
the  agreement  between  them  and  the  history  of  the  Acts 
affords  good  reason  to  believe  that  "  the  persons  and  trans 
actions  described  are  real,  the  letters  authentic,  and  the 
narration  in  the  main  true.'^36)  The  Iforce  Paulince  estab 
lish  these  positions  in  the  most  satisfactory  manner.  I  do 
not  think  that  it  is  possible  for  any  one  to  read  them  atten 
tively  without  coming  to  the  conclusion  that  the  Epistles 
of  St.  Paul  and  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles  bring  us  into  con 
tact  with  real  persons,  real  scenes,  real  transactions  —  that 
the  letters  were  actually  written  by  St.  Paul  himself  at  the 
time  and  under  the  circumstances  related  in  the  history  — 
and  that  the  history  was  composed  by  one  who  had  that 
complete  knowledge  of  the  circumstances  which  could  only 
be  gained  by  personal  observation,  or  by  intimate  acquaint 
ance  with  the  Apostle  who  is  the  chief  subject  of  the  nar 
rative.  The  effect  of  a  perusal  of  this  masterly  work  will 
scarcely  be  neutralized  by  the  bare  and  unsupported  asser 
tion  of  Strauss,  that  "  the  details  concerning  Paul  in  the 
Book  of  the  Acts  are  so  completely  at  variance  with  Paul's 
genuine  epistles,  that  it  is  extremely  difficult  to  reconcile 
them  with  the  notion  that  they  were  written  by  a  compan- 

1  Acts  ix.  37-41  ;  xx.  9-12. 
2  Ibid.  v.  15.  3  Ibid  xix.  12. 


172  HISTORICAL  EVIDENCES  OP  THE          LECT.  VI. 

ion  of  the  Apostle."  (3?)  The  Horce  Paulina  should  have 
been  answered  in  detail,  before  such  an  assertion  was 
adventured  on.  Boldly  and  barely  made,  without  a  tittle 
of  proof,  it  can  only  be  regarded  as  an  indication  of  the 
titter  recklessness  of  the  new  School,  and  of  its  striking 
deficiency  in  the  qualities  which  are  requisite  for  a  sound 
and  healthy  criticism. 

It  is  further  to  be  remarked,  that  Paley's  work,  excellent 
and  conclusive  as  it  must  be  allowed  to  be,  is  far  from 
being  exhaustive.  He  has  noticed,  and  illustrated  in  a  very 
admirable  way,  the  most  remarkable  of  the  undesigned 
coincidences  between  the  Acts  and  the  Pauline  Epistles ; 
but  it  would  not  be  difficult  to  increase  his  list  by  the  addi 
tion  of  an  equal  number  of  similar  points  of  agreement, 
which  he  has  omitted.  (38) 

Again,  it  is  to  be  remarked,  that  the  argument  of  Paley 
is  applicable  also  to  other  parts  of  the  New  Testament. 
Undesigned  coincidences  of  the  class  which  Paley  notes 
are  frequent  in  the  Gospels,  and  have  often  been  pointed 
out  in  passing  by  commentators,  though  I  am  not  aware 
that  they  have  ever  been  collected  or  made  the  subject  of 
a  separate  volume.  When  St.  Matthew,1  however,  and  St. 
Luke,2  in  giving  the  list  of  the  Apostles,  place  them  in  pairs 
without  assigning  a  reason,  while  St.  Mark,  whose  list  is  not 
in  pairs,3  happens  to  mention  that  they  were  sent  out  "  two 
and  two,"4  we  have  the  same  sort  of  recondite  and  (hu 
manly  speaking)  accidental  harmony  on  which  Paley  has 
insisted  with  such  force  as  an  evidence  of  authenticity  and 
truth  in  connection  with  the  history  of  the  Acts.  It  would 
be  easy  to  multiply  instances ;  but  my  limits  will  not  allow 
me  to  do  more  than  briefly  to  allude  to  this  head  of  evi- 

1  Matt.  x.  2-4.  2  Luke  vi.  14-16. 

3  Mark  iii.  16-19.  4  Ibid.  vi.  7. 


LECT.  VI        TRUTH   OF   THE   SCRIPTURE   RECORDS.  173 

dence,  to  which  full  justice  could  not  be  done  unless  by  an 
elaborate  work  on  the  subject.  (39) 

Finally,  let  it  be  considered  whether  the  Epistles  alone, 
apart  from  the  Gospels  and  the  Acts,  do  not  sufficiently 
establish  the  historic  truth  of  that  narrative  of  the  life  of 
Christ  and  foundation  of  the  Christian  Church,  which  it  has 
been  recently  attempted  to  resolve  into  mere  myth  and 
fnble.  The  genuineness  of  St.  Paul's  Epistles,  with  one  or 
two  exceptions,  is  admitted  even  by  Strauss ;  (4°)  and  there 
are  no  valid  reasons  for  entertaining  any  doubt  concerning 
the  authorship  of  the  other  Epistles,  except  perhaps  in  the 
case  of  that  to  the  Hebrews,  and  of  the  two  shorter  Epis 
tles  commonly  assigned  to  St.  John.  (41)  Excluding  these, 
we  have  eighteen  letters  written  by  five  of  the  principal 
Apostles  of  Christ,  one  by  St.  John,  two  by  St.  Peter,  thir 
teen  by  St.  Paul,  one  by  St.  James,  and  one  by  St.  Jude, 
his  brother — partly  consisting  of  public  addresses  to  bodies 
of  Christians,  partly  of  instructions  to  individuals  —  all 
composed  for  practical  purposes  with  special  reference  to 
the  peculiar  exigencies  of  the  time,  but  all  exhibiting  casu 
ally  and  incidentally  the  state  of  opinion  and  belief  among 
Christians  during  the  half  century  immediately  following 
our  Lord's  ascension.  It  is  indisputable  that  the  writers, 
and  those  to  whom  they  wrote,  believed  in  the  recent 
occurrence  of  a  set  of  facts  similar  to,  or  identical  with, 
those  recorded  in  the  Gospels  and  the  Acts  —  more  partic 
ularly  those  which  are  most  controverted,  such  as  the  trans 
figuration,  the  resurrection,  and  the  ascension.  "  Great  is 
the  mystery  of  godliness,"  says  St.  Paul.  "  God  was  mani 
fest  in  the  flesh,  justified  in  the  Spirit,  seen  of  angels, 
preached  unto  the  Gentiles,  believed  on  in  the  world, 
received  up  into  glory."1  "Christ,"  says  St.  Peter,  " suf- 

1  1  Tim.  iii.  16. 

15* 


174  HISTORICAL  EVIDENCES   OP  THE  LECT.  VI. 

fered  once  for  sins,  the  just  for  the  unjust,  that  he  might 
bring  us  to  God,  being  put  to  death  in  the  flesh,  but  quick 
ened  in  the  spirit." l  "  He  received  from  God  the  Father 
honor  and  glory,  when  there  came  such  a  voice  to  him  from 
the. excellent  glory,  'This  is  my  beloved  Son  in  whom  I  am 
well  pleased;'  and  this  voice  which  came  from  heaven  we 
heard,  when  we  were  with  him  in  the  holy  mount." 2  "  God 
raised  up  Christ  from  the  dead,  and  gave  him  glory"3  — 
"  He  is  gone  into  heaven,  and  is  on  the  right  hand  of  God, 
angels  and  authorities  and  powers  being  made  subject  to 
him."4  "Remember,"  again  St.  Paul  says,  "that  Jesus 
Christ  of  the  seed  of  David  was  raised  from  the  dead " 5  — 
"If  Christ  be  not  risen,  then  is  our  preaching  vain,  and 
your  faith  also  is  vain " 6  —  "I  delivered  unto  you  first  of 
all  that  which  I  also  received,  how  that  Christ  died  for  our 
sins  according  to  the  Scriptures ;  and  that  he  was  buried, 
and  that  he  rose  again  the  third  day  according  to  the 
Scriptures ;  and  that  he  was  seen  of  Cephas,  then  of  the 
twelve  —  after  that  he  was  seen  of  above  five  hundred 
brethren  at  once  .  .  .  after  that,  he  was  seen  of  James,  then 
of  all  the  apostles."7  These  are  half  a  dozen  texts  out  of 
hundreds,  which  might  be  adduced  to  show  that  the  writers 
of  the  Epistles,  some  writing  before,  some  after  the  Evan 
gelists,  are  entirely  agreed  with  them  as  to  the  facts  on 
which  Christianity  is  based,  and  as  strongly  assert  their 
reality.  We  are  told,  that  "  the  Gospel  myths  grew  up  in 
the  space  of  about  thirty  years,  between  the  death  of  Jesus 
and  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem."  (42)  But  in  the  Epistles 
and  the  Acts  there  is  evidence  that  throughout  the  whole 
of  this  time  the  belief  of  the  Church  was  the  same  —  the 

1  1  Pet.  iii.  18.  2  2  Pet.  i.  17,  18.  3  1  Pet.  i.  21. 

4  Ibid.  iii.  22.  5  2  Tim.  ii.  8.  6  1  Cor.  xv.  14. 

.    7  Ibid,  veyses  3-7. 


VL      TRUTH  OF  THE  SCRIPTURE  RECORDS.  175 

Apostles  themselves,  the  companions  of  Christ,  maintained 
from  the  first  the  reality  of  those  marvellous  events  which 
the  Evangelists  have  recorded  —  they  proclaimed  them 
selves  the  "  witnesses  of  the  resurrection  " l  —  appealed  to 
the  "  miracles  and  signs  " 2  which  Jesus  had  wrought  —  and 
based  their  preaching  altogether  upon  the  facts  of  the  Gos 
pel  narrative.  There  is  no  historical  ground  for  asserting 
that  that  narrative  was  formed  by  degrees ;  nor  is  there 
any  known  instance  of  a  mythic  history  having  grown  up 
in  such  an  age,  under  such  circumstances,  or  with  such 
rapidity  as  is  postulated  in  this  case  by  our  adversaries. 
The  age  was  an  historical  age,  being  that  of  Dionysius, 
Diodorus,  Livy,  Velleius  Paterculus,  Plutarch,  Valerius 
Maximus,  and  Tacitus  —  the  country  was  one  where 
written  records  were  kept,  and  historical  literature  had 
long  flourished  ;  it  produced  at  the  very  time  when  the 
New  Testament  documents  were  being  written,  an  historian 
of  good  repute,  Josephus,  whose  narrative  of  the  events  of 
his  own  time  is  universally  accepted  as  authentic  and 
trustworthy.  To  suppose  that  a  mythology  could  be 
formed  in  such  an  age  and  country,  is  to  confuse  the  char 
acteristics  of  the  most  opposite  periods  —  to  ascribe  to  a 
time  of  luxury,  over-civilization,  and  decay,  a  phase  of 
thought  which  only  belongs  to  the  rude  vigor  and  early 
infancy  of  nations. 

There  is  in  very  deed  no  other  alternative,  if  we  reject 
the  historic  truth  of  the  New  Testament,  than  that  em 
braced  by  the  old  assailants  of  Christianity  —  the  ascrip 
tion  of  the  entire  religion  to  imposture.  The  mythical  ex 
planation  seems  to  have  been  invented  in  order  to  avoid 
this  harsh  conclusion,  which  the  moral  tone  of  the  religion 
and  the  sufferings  of  its  first  propagators  in  defence  of  it 

1  Acts  i.  22  ;  iv.  33,  &c.  2  Ibid.  ii.  22. 


176  HISTORICAL  EVIDENCES  OF  THE  LECT.  VI. 

alike  contradict.  The  explanation  fails,  however,  even  in 
this  respect ;  for  its  great  advocate  finds  it  insufficient  to 
explain  the  phenomena,  and  finally  delivers  it  as  his 
opinion,  that  in  many  places  the  authors  of  the  Gospels 
consciously  and  designedly  introduced  fictions  into  their 
narratives.  (43)  If  then  we  feel  sure  that  in  the  books  of 
the  "New  Testament  we  have  not  the  works  of  impostors, 
testifying  to  have  seen  that  which  they  had  not  seen,  and 
knew  that  they  had  not  seen ;  if  we  are  conscious  in  read 
ing  them  of  a  tone  of  sincerity  and  truth  beyond  that  of 
even  the  most  veracious  and  simple-minded  of  profane 
writers ;  if  we  recognize  throughout  an  atmosphere  of  fact 
and  reality,  a  harmony  of  statement,  a  frequency  of  un 
designed  coincidence,  an  agreement  like  that  of  honest 
witnesses  not  studious  of  seeming  to  agree  ;  we  must  pro 
nounce  utterly  untenable  this  last  device  of  the  sceptic, 
which  presents  even  more  difficulties  than  the  old  unbelief. 
"We  must  accept  the  documents  as  at  once  genuine  and 
authentic.  The  writers  declare  to  us  that  which  they  have 
heard  and  seen.1  They  were  believed  by  thousands  of 
their  contemporaries,  on  the  spot  where  they  stated  the 
most  remarkable  of  the  events  to  have  taken  place,  and 
within  a  few  weeks  of  the  time.  They  could  not  be  mis 
taken  as  to  those  events.  And  if  it  be  granted  that  these 
happened  —  if  the  resurrection  and  ascension  are  allowed 
to  be  facts,  then  the  rest  of  the  narrative  may  well  be  re 
ceived,  for  it  is  less  marvellous.  Vain  are  the  "  profane 
babblings,"  which  ever  "  increase  unto  more  ungodliness," 
of  those  whose  "  word  doth  eat  like  a  canker  .  .  .  who  con 
cerning  the  truth  have  erred  "  —  denying  the  resurrection 
of  Christ,  and  "  saying  that  the  resurrection  "  of  man  "  is 
past  already,"  thus  "  overthrowing  the  faith  of  some." 2 

1  1  John  i.  3.  2  2  Tim.  ii.  16-18. 


LECT.  VI.   TRUTH  OF  THE  SCRIPTURE  RECORDS.       177 

"  The  foundation  of  God  standeth  sure." l  "  Jesus  Christ 
of  the  seed  of  David  was  raised  from  the  dead  " 2  —  Jesus 
Christ,  the  God-Man,  is  "ascended  into  the  heavens."3 
These  are  the  cardinal  points  of  the  Christian's  faith. 
On  these  credentials,  which  nothing  can  shake,  he  accepts 
as  certain  the  divine  mission  of  his  Saviour. 

1  2  Tim.  ii.  19.  .  2  Ibid,  verse  8.  3  Acts  ii.  34. 


LECTURE   VII. 

IN  THE   MOUTH  OF  TWO    OR  THREE  WITNESSES    SHALL    EVERY  WORD  BE 
ESTABLISHED.  —  2  CORINTHIANS   XIII.  1. 

THE  historical  inquirer,  on  passing  from  the  history  of 
the  Old  Testament  to  that  contained  in  the  New,  cannot 
fail  to  be  struck  with  the  remarkable  contrast  which  exists 
between  the  two  narratives  in  respect  of  their  aim  and 
character.  In  the  Old  Testament  the  writers  seek  to  set 
before  us  primarily  and  mainly  the  history  of  their  nation, 
and  only  secondarily  and  in  strict  subordination  to  this 
object  introduce  accounts  of  individuals.  (*>  Their  works 
fall  under  the  head  of  History  Proper  —  History,  no 
doubt,  of  a  peculiar  cast,  —  not  secular,  that  is,  but  sacred 
or  theocratic,  —  yet  still  History  in  the  strictest  sense  of 
the  term,  —  accounts  of  kings  and  rulers,  and  of  the  vicis 
situdes  through  which  the  Jewish  nation  passed,  its  suffer 
ings,  triumphs,  checks,  reverses,  its  struggles,  ruin,  and 
recovery.  In  the  Historical  Books  of  the  New  Testament, 
on  the  contrary,  these  points  cease  altogether  to  engage 
the  writers'  attention,  which  becomes  fixed  on  an  individual, 
whose  words  and  actions,  and  the  effect  of  whose  teaching, 
it  is  their  great  object  to  put  on  record.  The  authors  of 
the  Gospels  are  biographers  of  Christ,  not  historians  of 
their  nation ;  they  intend  no  account  of  the  political  con 
dition  of  Palestine  in  their  time,  but  only  a  narrative  of 
the  chief  facts  concerning  our  Lord  —  especially  those  of 

(178) 


LECT.  VII.  TRUTH  OP  THE  SCRIPTURE  RECORDS.       179 

his  public  life  and  ministry.  (2)  Even  the  Evangelist,  who 
in  a  second  treatise  carries  on  the  narrative  from  the 
Ascension  during  the  space  of  some  thirty  years  to  the 
first  imprisonment  of  St.  Paul  at  Rome,  leaves  untouched 
the  national  history,  and  confines  himself  (as  the  title  of 
his  work  implies)  to  the  "  acts "  of  those  who  made  the 
doctrine  of  Christ  known  to  the  world.  Hence  the  agree 
ment  to  be  traced  between  the  sacred  narrative  and  pro 
fane  history  in  this  part  of  the  Biblical  records,  consists 
only  to  a  very  small  extent  of  an  accord  with  respect  to 
the  main  facts  related,  which  it  scarcely  came  within  the 
sphere  of  the  civil  historian  to  commemorate ;  it  is  to  be 
found  chiefly,  if  not  solely,  in  harmonious  representations 
with  respect  to  facts  which  in  the  Scriptural  narrative  are 
incidental  and  secondary,  as  the  names,  offices,  and  char 
acters  of  the  political  personages  to  whom  there  happens 
to  be  allusion;  the  general  condition  of  the  Jews  and 
heathen  at  the  time ;  the  prevalent  manners  and  customs ; 
and  the  like.  The  value  of  such  confirmation  is  not,  how 
ever,  less,  but  rather  greater,  than  that  of  the  more  direct 
confirmation  which  would  result  from  an  accordance  with 
respect  to  main  facts  —  in  the  first  place,  because  it  is  a 
task  of  the  extremest  difficulty  for  any  one  but  an  honest 
contemporary  writer  to  maintain  accuracy  in  the  wide 
field  of  incidental  allusion ;  (3>  and  secondly,  because  exact 
ness  in  such  matters  is  utterly  at  variance  with  the  mythi 
cal  spirit,  of  which,  according  to  the  latest  phase  of  unbe 
lief,  the  narrative  of  the  New  Testament  is  the  product. 
The  detail  and  appearance  of  exactness,  which  character 
izes  the  Evangelical  writings,  is  of  itself  a  strong  argu 
ment  against  the  mythical  theory ;  if  it  can  be  shown  that 
the  detail  is  correct  and  the  exactness  that  of  persons  in 
timately  acquainted  with  the  whole  history  of  the  time 


180  HISTORICAL  EVIDENCES  OF  THE         LECT.  VII. 

and  bent  on  faithfully  recording  it,  that  theory  may  be 
considered  as  completely  subverted  and  disproved.  It  will 
be  the  chief  object  of  the  present  Lecture  to  make  it 
apparent  that  this  is  the  case  with  respect  to  the  Evangeli 
cal  writings  —  that  the  incidental  references  to  the  civil 
history  of  the  time  of  which  they  treat,  and  to  the  condition 
of  the  nations  with  which  they  deal,  are  borne  out,  for  the 
most  part,  by  Pagan  or  Jewish  authors,  and  are  either 
proved  thus  to  be  correct,  or  are  at  any  rate  such  as  there 
is  no  valid  reason,  on  account  of  any  disagreement  with 
profane  authorities,  seriously  to  question. 

Before  entering,  however,  on  this  examination  of  the 
incidental  allusions  or  secondary  facts  in  the  New  Testa 
ment  narrative,  it  is  important  to  notice  two  things  with 
regard  to  the  main  facts ;  in  the  first  place,  that  some  of 
them  (as  the  miracles,  the  resurrection,  and  the  ascension) 
are  of  such  a  nature  that  no  testimony  to  them  from  pro 
fane  sources  was  to  be  expected,  since  those  who  believed 
them  naturally  and  almost  necessarily  became  Christians ; 
and  secondly,  that  with  regard  to  such  as  are  not  of  this 
character,  there  does  exist  profane  testimony  of  the  first 
order.  The  existence  at  this  time  of  one  called  by  his  fol 
lowers  Christ,  the  place  of  his  teaching,  his  execution  by 
Pontius  Pilate,  Procurator  of  Judca  under  Tiberius,  the 
rapid  spread  of  his  doctrine  through  the  Roman  world,  the 
vast  number  of  converts  made  in  a  short  time,  the  persecu 
tions  which  they  underwent,  the  innocency  of  their  lives, 
their  worship  of  Christ  as  God  —  are  witnessed  to  by 
Heathen  writers  of  eminence,  and  would  be  certain  and 
indisputable  facts,  had  the  New  Testament  never  been  writ 
ten.  Tacitus,  Suetonius,  Juvenal,  Pliny,  Trajan,  Adrian,  (4> 
writing  in  the  century  immediately  following  upon  the 
death  of  Christ,  declare  these  things  to  us,  and  establish, 


LECT.  VII.     TRUTH  OF  THE  SCRIPTURE  RECORDS.  181 

so  firmly  that  no  sceptic  can  even  profess  to  doubt  it,  the 
historical  character  of  (at  least)  that  primary  groundwork 
whereon  the  Christian  story,  as  related  by  the  Evangelists, 
rests  as  on  an  immovable  basis.  These  classic  notices  com 
pel  even  those  who  set  no  value  on  the  historical  Christ,  to 
admit  his  existence  ;  (5>  they  give  a  definite  standing-point 
to  the  religion,  which  might  otherwise  have  been  declared 
to  have  no  historical  foundation  at  all,  but  to  be  purely 
and  absolutely  mythic ;  they  furnish,  taken  by  themselves, 
no  unimportant  argument  for  the  truth  of  the  religion, 
which  they  prove  to  have  been  propagated  with  such 
zeal,  by  persons  of  pure  and  holy  lives,  in  spite  of  punish 
ments  and  persecutions  of  the  most  fearful  kind ;  and  they 
form,  in  combination  with  the  argument  from  the  historic 
accuracy  of  the  incidental  allusions,  an  evidence  in  favor  of 
the  substantial  truth  of  the  New  Testament  narrative 
which  is  amply  sufficient  to  satisfy  any  fair  mind.  As  they 
have  been  set  forth  fully  and  with  admirable  argumenta 
tive  skill  by  so  popular  a  writer  as  Paley,  I  am  content  to 
make  this  passing  allusion  to  them,  and  to  refer  such  of 
my  hearers  as  desire  a  fuller  treatment  of  the  point  to  the 
excellent  chapter  on  the  subject  in  the  first  part  of  Paley's 
Evidences.  (6) 

If  an  objection  be  raised  against  the  assignment  of  very 
much  weight  to  these  testimonies  of  adversaries  on  account 
of  their  scant  number  and  brevity ;  and  if  it  be  urged,  that 
supposing  the  ISTew  Testament  narrative  to  be  true,  we 
should  have  expected  far  more  frequent  and  fuller  notices 
of  the  religion  and  its  Founder  than  the  remains  of  anti 
quity  in  fact  furnish,  —  if  it  be  said  (for  instance)  that 
Josephus  ought  to  have  related  the  miracles  of  Christ, 
and  Seneca,  the  brother  of  Gallio,  his  doctrines ;  that 
the  observant  Pausanias,  the  voluminous  Plutarch,  the 

16 


182  HISTORICAL  EVIDENCES  OP  THE          LECT.  VII. 

copious  Dio,  the  exact  Arrian,  should  have  made  fre 
quent  mention  of  Christianity  in  their  writings,  instead 
of  almost  wholly  ignoring  it ;  (7)  let  it  be  considered, 
in  the  first  place,  whether  the  very  silence  of  these  writers 
is  not  a  proof  of  the  importance  which  in  their  hearts 
they  assigned  to  Christianity,  and  the  difficulty  which 
they  felt  in  dealing  with  it  —  whether  in  fact  it  is  not 
a  forced  and  studied  reticence  —  a  reticence  so  far  from 
being  indicative  of  ignorance  that  it  implies  only  too  much 
knowledge,  having  its  origin  in  a  feeling  that  it  was  best 
to  ignore  what  it  was  unpleasant  to  confess  and  impossi 
ble  to  meet  satisfactorily.  Pausanias  must  certainly  have 
been  aware  that  the  shrines  of  his  beloved  gods  were  in 
many  places  deserted,  and  that  their  temples  were  falling 
into  decay,  owing  to  the  conversion  of  the  mass  of  the 
people  to  the  new  religion ;  we  may  be  sure  he  inwardly 
mourned  over  this  sad  spirit  of  disaffection  —  this  madness 
(as  he  must  have  thought  it)  of  a  degenerate  age ;  but  no 
word  is  suffered  to  escape  him  on  the  painful  subject ;  he 
is  too  jealous  of  his  gods'  honor  to  allow  that  there  are  any 
who  dare  to  insult  them.  Like  the  faithful  retainer  of  a 
falling  house  he  covers  up  the  shame  of  his  masters,  and 
bears  his  head  so  much  the  more  proudly  because  of  their 
depressed  condition.  Again,  it  is  impossible  that  Epic- 
tetus  could  have  been  ignorant  of  the  wonderful  patience 
and  constancy  of  the  Christian  martyrs,  of  their  marked 
contempt  of  death  and  general  indifference  to  worldly 
things  —  he  must,  one  would  think,  as  a  Stoic,  have  been 
moved  with  a  secret  admiration  of  those  great  models  of 
fortitude,  and  if  he  had  allowed  himself  to  speak  freely, 
could  not  but  have  made  frequent  reference  to  them.  The 
one  contemptuous  notice,  which  is  all  that  Arrian  re 
ports,  (8)  sufficiently  indicates  his  knowledge ;  the  entire 


LECT.  VII.     TRUTH  OF  THE  SCRIPTURE  RECORDS.  183 

silence,  except  in  this  passage,  (°)  upon  what  it  so  nearly 
concerned  a  Stoical  philosopher  to  bring  forward,  can  only 
be  viewed  as  the  studied  avoidance  of  a  topic  which  would 
have  been  unpalatable  to  his  hearers,  and  to  himself  per 
haps  not  wholly  agreeable.  The  philosopher  who  regarded 
himself  as  raised  by  study  and  reflection  to  an  exalted 
height  above  the  level  of  ordinary  humanity  would  not  be 
altogether  pleased  to  find  that  his  elevation  was  attained 
by  hundreds  of  common  men,  artisans  and  laborers, 
through  the  power  of  a  religion  which  he  looked  on  as 
mere  fanaticism.  Thus  from  different  motives,  —  from 
pride,  from  policy,  from  fear  of  offending  the  Chief  of  the 
state,  from  real  attachment  to  the  old  Heathenism  and  ten 
derness  for  it  —  the  heathen  writers  who  witnessed  the 
birth  and  growth  of  Christianity,  united  in  a  reticence, 
which  causes  their  notices  of  the  religion  to  be  a  very 
insufficient  measure  of  the  place  which  it  really  held  in 
their  thoughts  and  apprehensions.  A  large  allowance  is  to 
be  made  for  this  studied  silence  in  estimating  the  value  of 
the  actual  testimonies  to  the  truth  of  the  New  Testament 
narrative  adducible  from  heathen  writers  of  the  first  and 
second  centuries.  (10> 

And  the  silence  of  Josephus  is,  more  plainly  still,  wilful 
and  affected.  It  is  quite  impossible  that  the  Jewish  histo 
rian  should  have  been  ignorant  of  the  events  which  had 
drawn  the  eyes  of  so  many  to  JudaBa  but  a  few  years 
before  his  own  birth,  and  which  a  large  and  increasing  sect 
believed  to  possess  a  supernatural  character.  Jesus  of 
Nazareth  was,  humanly  speaking,  at  least  as  considerable  a 
personage  as  John  the  Baptist,  and  the  circumstances  of 
his  life  and  death  must  have  attracted  at  least  as  much 
attention.  There  was  no  good  reason  why  Josephus,  if  he 
had  been  an  honest  historian,  should  have  mentioned  the 


184  HISTORICAL  EVIDENCES   OF  THE          LECT.  VII. 

latter  and  omitted  the  former.  He  had  grown  to  manhood 
during  the  time  that  Christianity  was  being  spread  over  the 
world  ;(n)  he  had  probably  witnessed  the  tumults  excited 
against  St.  Paul  by  his  enemies  at  Jerusalem;1  he  knew 
of  the  irregular  proceedings  against  "James  the  Lord's 
brother ;"2(12)  he  must  have  been  well  acquainted  with  the 
various  persecutions  which  the  Christians  had  undergone 
at  the  hands  of  both  Jews  and  heathen ;  (13)  at  any  rate  he 
could  not  fail  to  be  at  least  as  well  informed  as  Tacitus  on 
the  subject  of  transactions,  of  which  his  own  country  had 
been  the  scene,  and  which  had  fallen  partly  within  his  own 
lifetime.  When,  therefore,  we  find  that  he  is  absolutely 
silent  concerning  the  Christian  religion,  and,  if  he  mentions 
Christ  at  all,  mentions  him  only  incidentally  in  a  single 
passage,  as,  "  Jesus,  who  was  called  Christ,"  (14>  without  ap 
pending  further  comment  or  explanation;  when  we  find 
this,  we  cannot  but  conclude  that  for  some  reason  or  other 
the  Jewish  historian  practises  an  intentional  reserve,  and 
will  not  enter  upon  a  subject  which  excites  his  fears,  (15)  or 
offends  his  prejudices.  No  conclusions  inimical  to  the  his 
toric  accuracy  of  the  New  Testament  can  reasonably  be 
drawn  from  the  silence  of  a  writer  who  determinately 
avoids  the  subject. 

Further,  in  estimating  the  value  of  that  direct  evidence 
of  adversaries  to  the  main  facts  of  Christianity  which 
remains  to  us,  we  must  not  overlook  the  probability  that 
much  evidence  of  this  kind  has  perished.  The  books  of  the 
early  opponents  of  Christianity,  which  might  have  been  of 
the  greatest  use  to  us  for  the  confirmation  of  the  Gospel 
History,  (1G)  were  with  an  unwise  zeal  destroyed  by  the  first 
Christian  Emperors.  <17)  Other  testimony  of  the  greatest 
importance  has  perished  by  the  ravages  of  time.  It  seems 

1  Acts  xxi.  27,  et  seqq.. ;  xxii.  22, 23  ;  xxiii.  10.  2  Gal.  i.  19. 


LECT.  VII.     TRUTH   OF  THE  SCRIPTURE  RECORDS.  185 

certain  that  Pilate  remitted  to  Tiberius  an  account  of  the 
execution  of  our  Lord,  and  the  grounds  of  it ;  and  that  this 
document,  to  which  Justin  Martyr  more  than  once  alludes,  (18) 
was  deposited  in  the  archives  of  the  empire.  The  "Acts  of 
Pilate,"  as  they  were  called,  seem  to  have  contained  an 
account,  not  only  of  the  circumstances  of  the  crucifixion, 
and  the  grounds  upon  which  the  Roman  governor  regarded 
himself  as  justified  in  passing  sentence  of  death  upon  the 
accused,  but  also  of  the  Miracles  of  Christ  —  his  cures  per 
formed  upon  the  lame,  the  dumb,  and  the  blind,  his  cleans 
ing  of  lepers,  and  his  raising  of  the  dead.  (19>  If  this  valua 
ble  direct  testimony  had  been  preserved  to  us,  it  would 
scarcely  have  been  necessary  to  enter  on  the  consideration 
of  those  indirect  proofs  of  the  historical  truth  of  the  New 
Testament  narrative  arising  from  the  incidental  allusions 
to  the  civil  history  of  the  times  which  must  now  occupy 
our  attention. 

The  incidental  allusions  to  the  civil  history  of  the  times 
which  the  waitings  of  the  Evangelists  furnish,  will,  I  think, 
be  most  conveniently  reviewed  by  being  grouped  under 
three  heads.  I  shall  consider,  first  of  all,  such  as  bear  upon 
the  general  condition  of  the  countries  which  were  the 
scene  of  the  history;  secondly,  such  as  have  reference  to 
the  civil  rulers  and  administrators  wrho  are  represented  as 
exercising  authority  in  the  countries  at  the  time  of  the  nar 
rative  ;  and,  thirdly,  such  as  touch  on  separate  and  isolated 
facts  which  might  be  expected  to  obtain  mention  in  profane 
writers.  These  three  heads  will  embrace  all  the  most  im 
portant  of  the  allusions  in  question,  and  the  arrangement 
of  the  scattered  notices  under  them  will,  I  hope,  prove  con 
ducive  to  perspicuity. 

I.  The  political  condition  of  Palestine  at  the  time  to 
which  the  New  Testament  narrative  properly  belongs,  was 

16* 


186  HISTORICAL  EVIDENCES   OF  THE         LECT.  VII. 

one  curiously  complicated  and  anomalous;  it  underwent 
frequent  changes,  but  retained  through  all  of  them  certain 
peculiarities,  which  made  the  position  of  the  country 
unique  among  the  dependencies  of  Rome.  Not  having 
been  conquered  in  the  ordinary  way,  but  having  passed 
under  the  Roman  dominion  with  the  consent  and  by  the 
assistance  of  a  large  party  among  the  inhabitants,  it  was 
allowed  to  maintain  for  a  while  a  species  of  semi-independ 
ence,  not  unlike  that  of  various  native  states  in  India  which 
are  really  British  dependencies.  A  mixture,  and  to  some 
extent  an  alternation,  of  Roman  with  native  power  resulted 
from  this  arrangement,  and  a  consequent  complication  in 
the  political  status^  which  must  have  made  it  very  difficult 
to  be  thoroughly  understood  by  any  one  who  was  not  a 
native  and  a  contemporary.  The  chief  representative  of 
the  Roman  power  in  the  East  —  the  President  of  Syria,  the 
local  governor,  whether  a  Herod  or  a  Roman  Procurator, 
and  the  High  Priest,  had  each  and  all  certain  rights  and  a 
certain  authority  in  the  country.  A  double  system  of  tax 
ation,  a  double  administration  of  justice,  and  even  in  some 
degree  a  double  military  command,  were  the  natural  conse 
quence  ;  while  Jewish  and  Roman  customs,  Jewish  and 
Roman  words,  were  simultaneously  in  use,  and  a  condition 
of  things  existed  full  of  harsh  contrasts,  strange  mixtures, 
and  abrupt  transitions.  Within  the  space  of  fifty  years 
Palestine  was  a  single  united  kingdom  under  a  native 
ruler,  a  set  of  principalities  under  native  etlmarchs  and 
tetrarchs,  a  country  in  part  containing  such  principalities, 
in  part  reduced  to  the  condition  of  a  Roman  province,  a 
kingdom  reunited  once  more  under  a  native  sovereign, 
and  a  country  reduced  wholly  under  Rome  and  governed 
by  procurators  dependent  on  the  president  of  Syria,  but 
still  subject  in  certain  respects  to  the  Jewish  monarch  of  a 


LECT.  VII.      TRUTH   OF  THE   SCRIPTURE  RECORDS.  187 

neighboring  territory.  These  facts  we  know  from  Jose- 
phusC20)  and  other  writers,  who,  though  less  accurate,  on 
the  whole  confirm  his  statements ;  (21)  they  render  the  civil 
history  of  Juda?a  during  the  period  one  very  difficult  to 
master  and  remember ;  the  frequent  changes,  supervening 
upon  the  original  complication,  are  a  fertile  source  of  con 
fusion,  and  seem  to  have  bewildered  even  the  sagacious 
and  painstaking  Tacitus.  C22)  The  New  Testament  narra 
tive,  however,  foils  into  no  error  in  treating  of  the  period ; 
it  marks,  incidentally  and  without  effort  or  pretension,  the 
various  changes  in  the  civil  government  —  the  sole  king 
dom  of  Herod  the  Great,1  —  the  partition  of  his  dominions 
among  his  sons,2  —  the  reduction  of  Juda3a  to  the  condition 
of  a  Roman  province,  while  Galilee,  Ituraa,  and  Trachonitis 
continued  under  native  princes,3 — the  restoration  of  the  old 
kingdom  of  Palestine  in  the  person  of  Agrippa  the  First,4 
and  the  final  reduction  of  the  whole  under  Roman  rule, 
and  reestablishment  of  Procurators5  as  the  civil  heads,  while 
a  species  of  ecclesiastical  superintendence  was  exercised 
by  Agrippa  the  Second.6  C23)  Again,  the  New  Testament 
narrative  exhibits  in  the  most  remarkable  way  the  mixture 
in  the  government  —  the  occasional  power  of  the  president 
of  Syria,  as  shown  in  Cyrenius's  "taxing;"7  the  ordinary 
division  of  authority  between  the  High  Priest  and  the  Proc 
urator;8  the  existence  of  two  separate  taxations — the  civil 
and  the  ecclesiastical,  the  "census"9  and  the  "didrachm;"10 

1  Matt.  ii.  1 ;  Luke  i.  5. 

2  Ibid.  ii.  22,  and  xiv.  1  ;  Luke  iii.  1. 

3  Luke  iii.  1,  et  passim.  «  Acts  xii.  1,  et  seqq. 

5  Ibid,  xxiii.  24  ;  xxiv.  27,  &c.  6  Ibid.  xxv.  14,  et  seqq. 

7  Luke  ii.  2.     Compare  Acts  v.  37. 

8  Matt,  xxvii.  1,  2 ;  Acts  xxii.  30  ;  xxiii.  1-10. 

9  Ibid.  xxii.  17.  1°  Ibid.  xvii.  24. 


188  HISTORICAL  EVIDENCES   OF  THE          LECT.  VII. 

of  two  tribunals,1  two  modes  of  capital  punishment/24)  two 
military  forces,2  two  methods  of  marking  time  ;3  at  every 
turn  it  shows,  even  in  such  little  matters  as  verbal  expres 
sions,  the  coexistence  of  Jewish  with  Roman  ideas  and 
practices  in  the  country  —  a  coexistence,  which  (it  must  be 
remembered)  came  to  an  end  within  forty  years  of  our 
Lord's  crucifixion.  The  conjunction  in  the  same  writings 
of  such  Latillisms  as  JtevivQiojv^  ),e  ye&v* 
dlctj  XTJyao£,8  xodfj&VTTjgf  dyruyiov, 

,13  and  the   like/25)  with   such   Hebraisms   as 
l,15  dvo  dvo™  nyuccriul  rtfjuaiul,17  16 


I  John  xviii.  28,  32,  &c.         2  Matt,  xxvii.  64,  65.        3  Luke  iii.  1. 

4  Lat.  centurio  =  ~Eng.  "centurion."     (Mark  xv.  39,  44,  45.) 

5  Lat.  %/o  =  Eng.  "legion."     (Matt.  xxvi.  53;  Mark  v.  9;  Luke 
viii.  30.) 

6  Lat.  prepforium,  translated    "common  hall"   in    Matt,   xxvii.  27; 
"judgment    hall,"    or    "hall   of  judgment,"    in   John  xviii.  28,  33; 
xix.  9;   Acts    xxiii.  35;    "palace,"  in  Phil.  i.  13;   "  prietorium,"  in 
Mark  xv.  16. 

7  Lat.  custodia  =  Eng.  "  watch."     (Matt,  xxvii.  65,  66  ;  xxviii.  11.) 

8  Lat.  census  =  Eng.  "tribute."     (Matt.  xvii.  25  ;  xxii.  17,  19  ;  Mark 
xii.  14.) 

9  Lat.  quadrans  =  Eng.  "  farthing."     (Matt.  v.  26  ;  Mark  xii.  42.) 

10  Lat.  denarius  =  Eng.   "penny."      (Matt,  xviii.  28;    xx.  2,  9,  10, 
13  ;  xxii.  19  ;  Mark  vi.  37  ;  xii.  15  ;  xiv.  5  ;  Luke  vii.  41  ;  x.  35  ;  xx. 
24  ;  John  vi.  7  ;  xii.  5  ;  Rev.  vi.  6.) 

II  Lat.  assart  us  =•  Eng.  "farthing."     (Matt.  x.  29  ;  Luke  xii.  6.) 

12  Lat.  speculator  =Eng.  "  executioner."     (Mark  vi.  27.) 

13  A  participle  of  the  verb  <ppayiUovv,  formed  from  the  Latin  verb/«<7- 
ellare  =  to  scourge,   or  from  the  noun  flagellum  =  a  scourge.     It  is 
translated,  "when  he  had  scourged."     (Matt,  xxvii.  26  ;  Mark  xv.  15.) 

14  Heb.  isnjp  =  "  corban."  (Mark  vii.  11.) 

15  Rabboni,  John  xx.  16,  translated  "  Lord"  in  Mark  x.  51. 

16  Literally,   "two,  two;"  translated  "by  two  and  two"  in  Mark 
vi.  7.     The  repetition  is  a  Hebraism. 

17  Literally,  "  onion-beds,  onion-beds,"  that  is,  "  in  squares,"  like  a 


LECT.  VII.     TRUTH   OF  THE  SCRIPTURE  RECORDS.  189 


T7]?  ^^uwa^ws,1  (26)  was  only  natural  in  Palestine  during  the 
period  between  Herod  the  Great  and  the  destruction  of 
Jerusalem,  and  marks  the  writers  for  Jews  of  that  time  and 
country.  The  memory  of  my  hearers  will  add  a  multitude 
of  instances  from  the  Gospels  and  the  Acts  similar  in  their 
general  character  to  those  which  have  been  here  adduced 
—  indicative,  that  is,  of  the  semi-Jewish,  semi-Roman  con 
dition  of  the  Holy  Land  at  the  period  of  the  New  Testa 
ment  narrative. 

The  general  tone  and  temper  of  the  Jews  at  the  time, 
their  feelings  towards  the  Romans  and  towards  their  neigh 
bors,  their  internal  divisions  and  sects,  their  confident  ex 
pectation  of  a  deliverer,  are  represented  by  Josephus  and 
other  writers  in  a  manner  which  very  strikingly  accords 
with  the  account  incidentally  given  by  the  Evangelists. 
The  extreme  corruption  and  wickedness,  not  only  of  the 
mass  of  the  people,  but  even  of  the  rulers  and  chief  men,  is 
asserted  by  Josephus  in  the  strongest  terms  ;  (2?)  while  at 
the  same  time  he  testifies  to  the  existence  among  them  of 
a  species  of  zeal  for  religion  —  a  readiness  to  attend  the 
feasts,  (28)  a  regularity  in  the  offering  of  sacrifice/29)  an 
almost  superstitious  regard  for  the  temple,  (3°)  and  a  fanatic 
abhorrence  of  all  who  sought  to  "  change  the  customs  which 
Moses  had  delivered."2  The  conspiracy  against  Herod  the 
Great,  when  ten  men  bound  themselves  by  an  oath  to  kill 
him,  and  having  armed  themselves  with  short  daggers, 
which  they  hid  under  their  clothes,  entered  into  the  theatre 
where  they  expected  Herod  to  arrive,  intending  if  he 

garden-plot;  translated  "  by  companies."    (Mark  vi.  40.)     The  repeti 
tion  is  Hebraistic,  as  in  the  previous  instance. 

1  "The  abomination  of  desolation."  (Matt.  xxiv.  15;  Mark  xiii.  14.) 
Borrowed  from  Dan.  xi.  31  ;  xii.  11. 

2  Acts  vi.  14. 


190  HISTORICAL  EVIDENCES  OF  THE          LECT.  VII. 

came  to  fall  upon  him  and  despatch  him  with  their 
weapons,  (31)  breathes  the  identical  spirit  of  that  against  St. 
Paul,  which  the  promptness  of  the  chief  captain  Lysias 
alone  frustrated.1  Many  such  close  resemblances  have  been 
pointed  out.  C32)  We  find  from  Josephus  that  there  was  a 
warm  controversy  among  the  Jews  themselves  as  to  the 
lawfulness  of  "giving  tribute  to  Caesar ;" 2 (33>  that  the 
Samaritans  were  so  hostile  to  such  of  the  Galileans  as 
had  their  "faces  set  to  go  to  Jerusalem,"3  that,  on  one 
occasion  at  least,  they  fell  upon  those  who  were  journeying 
through  their  land  to  attend  a  feast,  and  murdered  a  large 
number ;  (34>  that  the  Pharisees  and  Sadducees  were  noted 
sects,  distinguished  by  the  tenets  which  in  Scripture  are 
assigned  to  them;(35)  that  the  Pharisees  were  the  more 
popular,  and  persuaded  the  common  people  as  they  pleased, 
while  the  Sadducees  were  important  chiefly  as  men  of  high 
rank  and  station  ;(36)  and  that  a  general  expectation, 
founded  upon  the  prophecies  of  the  Old  Testament,  existed 
among  the  Jews  during  the  Roman  war,  that  a  great  king 
was  about  to  rise  up  in  the  East,  of  their  own  race  and 
country.  (3?)  This  last  fact  is  confirmed  by  both  Sue 
tonius  (38)  and  Tacitus,  (39)  and  is  one  which  even  Strauss 
does  not  venture  to  dispute.  (4°)  Important  in  many  ways, 
it  adds  a  final  touch  to  that  truthful  portraiture  of  the 
Jewish  people  at  this  period  of  their  history,  which  the 
Gospels  and  the  Acts  furnish  —  a  portraiture  alike  free 
from  flattery  and  unfairness,  less  harsh  on  the  wThole  than 
that  of  Josephus,  if  less  favorable  than  that  of  Philo.  (41) 

It  would  be  easy  to  point  out  a  further  agreement  be 
tween  the  Evangelical  historians  and  profane  writers  with 
respect  to  the  manners  and  customs  of  the  Jews  at  this 
period.  There  is  scarcely  a  matter  of  this  kind  noted  in 

1  Acts  xxiii.  12-31.          2  Matt.  xxii.  17.          3  Luke  ix.  51. 


LECT.  VII.     TRUTH  OP  THE  SCRIPTURE  RECORDS.  191 

• 
the  New  Testament  which  may  not  be  confirmed  from 

Jewish  sources,  such  as  Josephus,  Philo,  and  the  Mishna. 
The  field,  however,  is  too  extensive  for  our  present  consid 
eration.  To  labor  in  it  is  the  province  rather  of  the  Com 
mentator  than  of  the  Lecturer,  who  cannot  effectively  ex 
hibit  arguments  which  depend  for  their  force  upon  the 
accumulation  of  minute  details. 

The  points  of  agreement  hitherto  adduced  have  had 
reference  to  the  Holy  Land  and  its  inhabitants.  It  is  not, 
however,  in  this  connection  only  that  the  accuracy  of  the 
Evangelical  writers  in  their  accounts  of  the  general  condi 
tion  of  those  countries  which  are  the  scene  of  their  history, 
is  observable.  Their  descriptions  of  the  Greek  and  Roman 
world,  so  far  as  it  comes  under  their  cognizance,  are  most 
accurate.  Nowhere  have  the  character  of  the  Athenians 
and  the  general  appearance  of  Athens  been  more  truth 
fully  and  skilfully  portrayed  than  in  the  few  verses  of  the 
Acts  which  contain  the  account  of  St.  Paul's  visit.1  The 
city  "full  of  idols"  (xuTeldulos)*  —  in  "gold,  and  silver, and 
marble,  graven  by  art  and  man's  device,"3  recalls  the 
n6hs  olrj  ^w^o?,  (U>;  6v[tu  ftsols  xal  fa&Oqfia  4  of  Xenophon,  (42> 
the  "Athense  simulachra  deorum  hominumque  habentes, 
omni  genere  et  materite  et  artium  insignia " 5  of  Livy.  (43> 
The  people  —  "Athenians  and  strangers,  spending  their 
time  in  nothing  else  but  hearing  or  telling  of  some  new 
thing  " 6  —  philosophizing  and  disputing  on  Mars'  Hill  and 
in  the  market-place/  glad  to  discuss  though  disinclined  to 

1  Acts  xvii.  15,  ct  scqq.  2  Ibid.  xvii.  16.  3  Ibid,  verse  29. 

4  The  whole  city  is  an  altar  —  the  whole  a  sacrifice  to  the  gods  and  an 
oblation. 

5  Athens,  which  has  famous  images  of  gods  and  men,  of  every  variety 
both  of  material  and  style  of  art. 

6  Acts  xvii.  21.  7  Ibid,  verse  17. 


192  HISTORICAL  EVIDENCES  OF  THE         LECT.  VII. 

believe,1  and  yet  religious  withal,  standing  in  honorable 
contrast  with  the  other  Greeks  in  respect  of  their  reverence 
for  things  divine,2  are  put  before  us  with  all  the  vividness 
of  life,  just  as  they  present  themselves  to  our  view  in  the 
pages  of  their  own  historians  and  orators.  C44)  Again,  how 
striking  and  how  thoroughly  classical  is  the  account  of  the 
tumult  at  Ephesus,3  where  almost  every  word  receives 
illustration  from  ancient  coins  and  inscriptions,  (45)  as  has 
been  excellently  shown  in  a  recent  work  of  great  merit  on 
the  Life  of  St.  Paul!  Or  if  we  turn  to  Rome  and  the 
Roman  system,  how  truly  do  we  find  depicted  the  great 
and  terrible  Emperor  whom  all  feared  to  provoke  (46>  —  the 
provincial  administration  by  proconsuls  and  others  chiefly 
anxious  that  tumults  should  be  prevented  (4?)  —  the  con 
temptuous  religious  tolerance  (48)  —  the  noble  principles  of 
Roman  law,  professed,  if  not  always  acted  on,  whereby 
accusers  and  accused  were  brought  "  face  to  face,"  and  the 
latter  had  free  "  license  to  answer  for  themselves  concern 
ing  the  crimes  laid  against  them  " 4  (49)  —  the  privileges  of 
Roman  citizenship,  sometimes  acquired  by  birth,  sometimes 
by  purchase  (5°)  —  the  right  of  appeal  possessed  and  exer 
cised  by  the  provincials  (51)  —  the  treatment  of  prisoners  (52> 
—  the  peculiar  manner  of  chaining  them  (53)  —  the  employ 
ment  of  soldiers  as  their  guards  (54>  —  the  examination  by 
torture  C55)  —  the  punishment  of  condemned  persons,  not 
being  Roman  citizens,  by  scourging  and  crucifixion  C56) — 
the  manner  of  this  punishment  (57>  —  the  practice  of  bearing 
the  cross,  (58>  of  affixing  a  title  or  superscription,  (5y)  of  pla 
cing  soldiers  under  a  centurion  to  watch  the  carrying  into 
effect  of  the  sentence,  (60>  of  giving  the  garments  of  the 
sufferer  to  these  persons,  (61>  of  allowing  the  bodies  after 

1  Acts  xvii.  32,  33.  2  Ibid,  verse  22. 

3  Ibid.  xix.  23,  et  seqq.  4  Ibid.  xxv.  16. 


LECT.  VII.     TRUTH  OF  THE  SCRIPTURE  RECORDS.  193 

death  to  be  buried  by  the  friends  (62>  —  and  the  like !  The 
sacred  historians  are  as  familiar,  not  only  with  the  general 
character,  but  even  with  some  of  the  obscurer  customs  of 
Greece  and  Rome,  as  with  those  of  their  own  country. 
Fairly  observant,  and  always  faithful  in  their  accounts,  they 
continually  bring  before  us  little  points  which  accord 
minutely  with  notices  in  profane  writers  nearly  contem 
porary  with  them,  while  occasionally  they  increase  our 
knowledge  of  classic  antiquity  by  touches  harmonious  with 
its  spirit,  but  additional  to  the  information  which  we  de 
rive  from  the  native  authorities.  C63) 

Again,  it  has  been  with  reason  remarked,  C64)  that  the 
condition  of  the  Jews  beyond  the  limits  of  Palestine  is 
represented  by  the  Evangelical  writers  very  agreeably  to 
what  may  be  gathered  of  it  from  Jewish  and  Heathen 
sources.  The  wide  dispersion  of  the  chosen  race  is  one  of 
the  facts  most  evident  upon  the  surface  of  the  New  Testa 
ment  history.  "  Parthians,  and  Medes,  and  Elamites,  and 
dwellers  in  Mesopotamia  and  Judaea  and  Cappadocia, 
Pontus  and  Asia,  Phrygia  and  Pamphylia,  Egypt,  and  the 
parts  of  Libya  about  Cyrene,  strangers  of  Rome,  Cretes, 
and  Arabians," 1  are  said  to  have  been  witnesses  at  Jerusa 
lem  of  the  first  outpouring  of  the  Holy  Ghost.  In  the 
travels  of  St.  Paul  through  Asia  Minor  and  Greece  there 
is  scarcely  a  city  to  which  he  comes  but  has  a  large  body 
of  Jewish  residents,  t65)  Compare  with  these  representa 
tions  the  statements  of  Agrippa  the  First  in  his  letter  to 
Caligula,  as  reported  by  the  Jewish  writer,  Philo.  "  The 
holy  city,  the  place  of  my  nativity,"  he  says,  "is  the 
metropolis,  not  of  Judaea  only,  but  of  most  other  countries, 
by  means  of  the  colonies  which  have  been  sent  out  of  it 
from  time  to  time  —  some  to  the  neighboring  countries  of 

1  Acts  ii.  9-11. 
17 


194  HISTORICAL  EVIDENCES  OF  THE          LECT.  VII. 

Egypt,  Phoenicia,  Syria,  and  Coelesyria  —  some  to  more  dis 
tant  regions,  as  Pamphylia,  Cilicia,  Asia  as  far  as  Bithynia 
and  the  recesses  of  Pontus ;  and  in  -Europe,  Thessaly, 
Bo3otia,  Macedonia,  ^Etolia,  Attica,  Argos,  Corinth,  together 
with  the  most  famous  of  the  islands,  Eubcea,  Cyprus,  and 
Crete ;  to  say  nothing  of  those  who  dwell  beyond  the 
Euphrates.  For,  excepting  a  small  part  of  the  Babylonian 
and  other  satrapies,  all  the  countries  which  have  a  fertile 
territory  possess  Jewish  inhabitants ;  so  that  if  thou  shalt 
show  this  kindness  to  my  native  place,  thou  wilt  benefit 
not  one  city  only,  but  thousands  in  every  region  of  the 
world,  in  Europe,  in  Asia,  in  Africa  —  on  the  continents, 
and  in  the  islands  —  on  the  shores  of  the  sea,  and  in  the 
interior."  (66)  In  a  similar  strain  Philo  himself  boasts,  that 
"  one  region  does  not  contain  the  Jewish  people,  since  it  is 
exceedingly  numerous ;  but  there  are  of  them  in  almost  all 
the  flourishing  countries  of  Europe  and  *Asia,  both  conti 
nental  and  insular."  (6?)  And  the  customs  of  these  dis 
persed  Jews  are  accurately  represented  in  the  New  Testa 
ment.  That  they  consisted  in  part  of  native  Jews,  in  part 
of  converts  or  proselytes,  is  evident  from  Josephus ;  C68)  that 
they  had  places  of  worship,  called  synagogues  or  oratories, 
in  the  towns  where  they  lived,  appears  from  Philo ;  that 
these  were  commonly  by  the  sea-side,  or  by  a  river-side,  as 
represented  in  the  Acts,1  is  plain  from  many  authors ;  (69) 
that  they  had  also  —  at  least  sometimes  —  a  synagogue  be 
longing  to  them  at  Jerusalem,  whither  they  resorted  at  the 
time  of  the  feasts,  is  certain  from  the  Talmudical  wri 
ters  ;(7°)  that  at  Rome  they  consisted  in  great  part  of 
freedmen  or  "Libertines"  —  whence  "the  synagogue  of 
the  Libertines"2  —  may  be  gathered  from  Philo (71>  and 
Tacitus.  (72>  Their  feelings  towards  the  apostolic  preachers 

1  Acts  xvi.  13.  2  Ibid.  vi.  9. 


LECT.  VII.     TRUTH   OF  THE  SCRIPTURE  RECORDS.  195 

are  such  as  we  should  expect  from  persons  whose  close 
contact  with  those  of  a  different  religion  made  them  all  the 
more  zealous  for  their  own ;  and  their  tumultuous  proceed 
ings  are  in  accordance  with  all  that  we  learn  from  profane 
authors  of  the  tone  and  temper  of  the  Jews  generally  at 
this  period.  (73) 

II.  I  proceed  now  to  consider  the  second  of  the  three 
heads  under  which  I  proposed  to  collect  the  chief  inciden 
tal  allusions  to  the  civil  history  of  the  times  contained  in 
the  New  Testament. 

The  civil  governors  and  administrators  distinctly  men 
tioned  by  the  New  Testament  historians  are  the  following 
—  the  Roman  Emperors,  Augustus,  Tiberius,  and  Claudius 
—  the  Jewish  kings  and  princes,  Herod  the  Great,  Arche- 
laus,  Herod  the  tetrarch,  (or,  as  he  is  commonly  called, 
Herod  Antipas,)  Philip  the  tetrarch,  Herod  Agrippa  the 
first,  and  Herod  Agrippa  the  second — the  Roman  gov 
ernors,  Cyrenius  (or  Quirinus,)  Pontius  Pilate,  Sergius 
Paulus,  Gallic,  Festus,  and  Felix  —  and  the  Greek  tetrarch, 
Lysanias.  It  may  be  shown  from  profane  sources,  in 
almost  every  case,  that  these  persons  existed  —  that  they 
lived  at  the  time  and  bore  the  office  assigned  to  them  — 
that  they  were  related  to  each  other,  where  any  relation 
ship  is  stated,  as  Scripture  declares  —  and  that  the  actions 
ascribed  to  them  are  either  actually  such  as  they  per 
formed,  or  at  least  in  perfect  harmony  with  what  profane 
history  tells  us  of  their  characters. 

With  regard  to  the  Roman  Emperors,  it  is  enough  to 
remark,  that  Augustus,  Tiberius,  and  Claudius  occur  in 
their  right  order,  that  St.  Luke  in  placing  the  commence 
ment  of  our  Lord's  ministry  in  the  fifteenth  year  of  Tibe 
rius1  and  assigning  to  its  duration  a  short  term — probably 

1  Luke  iii.  1. 


196  HISTORICAL  EVIDENCES  OF  THE          LECT.  VII. 

three  years  —  is  in  accord  with  Tacitus,  who  makes  Christ 
suffer  under  Tiberius  (74)  —  and  that  the  birth  of  our  Lord 
under  Augustus,1  and  the  accession  before  the  second  jour 
ney  of  St.  Paul  of  Claudius,2  are  in  harmony  with  the  date 
obtainable  from  St.  Luke  for  the  crucifixion,  and  sufficiently 
suit  the  general  scheme  of  profane  chronology,  which 
places  the  accession  of  Augustus  forty-four  years  before 
that  of  Tiberius,  and  makes  Claudius  reign  from  A.  D.  41 
to  A.  D.  54.  No  very  close  agreement  can  be  here  exhib 
ited  on  account  of  the  deficiency  of  an  exact  chronology, 
which  the  Gospels  share  with  many  of  the  most  important 
historical  writings ;  but  at  any  rate  the  notices  are  accord 
ant  with  one  another,  and  present,  when  compared  with 
the  dates  furnished  by  profane  writers,  no  difficulty  of  any 
real  importance.  (75> 

The  Jewish  kings  and  princes  whose  names  occur  in  the 
New  Testament  narrative,  occupy  a  far  more  prominent 
place  in  it  than  the  Roman  Emperors.  The  Gospel  narra 
tive  opens  "  in  the  days  of  Herod  the  king," 3  who,  as  the 
father  of  Archelaus,4  may  be  identified  with  the  first  monarch 
of  the  name,  the  son  of  Antipater,  the  Idumaean.  (7C)  This 
monarch  is  know^n  to  have  reigned  in  Palestine  contempo 
raneously  with  Augustus,  who  confirmed  him  in  his  king 
dom,  C77)  and  of  whom  he  held  the  sovereignty  till  his 
decease.  (78)  Cunning,  suspicion,  and  cruelty  are  the  chief 
traits  of  his  character  as  depicted  in  Scripture,  and  these 
are  among  his  most  marked  characteristics  in  Josephus.  (79> 
It  has  been  objected  to  the  Scriptural  narrative,  that 
Herod  would  not  have  been  likely  to  inquire  of  the  Magi 
at  what  time  they  first  saw  the  star,  since  he  expected 
them  to  return  and  give  him  a  full  description  of  the 

1  Luke  ii.  1-7.  2  Acts  xviii.  2. 

3  Matt.  ii.  1 ;  Luke  i.  5.  4  Ibid.  ii.  22. 


LECT.  VII.     TRUTH   OF  THE  SCRIPTURE  RECORDS.  197 

child  ;  (8°)  but  this  keen  and  suspicious  foresight,  where  his 
own  interests  were  (as  he  thought)  concerned,  is  quite  in 
keeping  with  the  representations  of  Josephus,  who  makes 
him  continually  distrust  those  with  whom  he  has  any  deal 
ings.  The  consistency  of  the  massacre  at  Bethlehem  with 
his  temper  and  disposition  is  now  acknowledged  ;(81)  scepti 
cism  has  nothing  to  urge  against  it  except  the  silence 
of  the  Jewish  writers,  which  is  a  weak  argument,  and  one 
outweighed,  in  my  judgment,  by  the  testimony,  albeit 
somewhat  late,  and  perhaps  inaccurate,  of  Macrobius.  (82) 

At  the  death  of  Herod  the  Great,  his  kingdom  (accord 
ing  to  Josephus)  was  divided,  with  the  consent  of  Augus 
tus,  among  three  of  his  sons.  Archelaus  received  Judaea, 
Samaria,  and  Iduma3a,  with  the  title  of  ethnarch ;  Philip 
and  Antipas  were  made  tetrarchs,  and  received,  the  latter 
Galilee  and  Peraea,  the  former  Trachonitis  and  the  adjoin 
ing  regions.  (83)  The  notices  of  the  Evangelists  are  confess 
edly  in  complete  accordance  with  these  statements.  (84)  St. 
Matthew  mentions  the  succession  of  Archelaus  in  Judaea, 
and  implies  that  he  did  not  reign  in  Galilee;1  St.  Luke 
records  Philip's  tetrarchy ; 2  while  the  tetrarchy  of  Antipas, 
who  is  designated  by  his  family  name  of  Herod,  is  dis 
tinctly  asserted  by  both  Evangelists.3  Moreover,  St.  Mat 
thew  implies  that  Archelaus  bore  a  bad  character  at  the 
time  of  his  accession  or  soon  afterwards,  which  is  consist 
ent  with  the  account  of  Josephus,  who  tells  us  that  he  was 
hated  by  the  other  members  of  his  family,  (85>  and  that 
shortly  after  his  father's  death  he  slew  three  thousand 
Jews  on  occasion  of  a  tumult  at  Jerusalem.  (86)  The  first 
three  Evangelists  agree  as  to  the  character  of  Herod 
Antipas,  which  is  weak  rather  than  cruel  or  bloodthirsty ; 
and  their  portraiture  is  granted  to  be  "not  inconsistent  with 

1  Matt.  ii.  22.  »  Luke  iii.  1.  »  Ibid. .  Matt.  ^  lt 

17* 


198  HISTORICAL   EVIDENCES   OF  THE          LECT.  VII. 

his  character,  as  gathered  from  other  sources."  (8?)  The 
facts  of  his  adultery  with  Herodias,  the  wife  of  one  of  his 
brothers,  (88)  and  of  his  execution  of  John  the  Baptist  for  no 
crime  that  could  be  alleged  against  him,  (89)  are  recorded 
by  Josephus ;  and  though  in  the  latter  case  there  is  some 
apparent  diversity  in  the  details,  yet  it  is  allowed  that  the 
different  accounts  may  be  reconciled.  (9°) 

The  continuance  of  the  tetrarchy  of  Philip  beyond  the 
fifteenth,  and  that  of  Antipas  beyond  the  eighteenth  of 
Tiberius,  is  confirmed  by  Josephus,  (91)  who  also  shows  that 
the  ethnarchy  of  Archelaus  came  speedily  to  an  end,  and 
that  Judaa  was  then  reduced  to  the  condition  of  a  Roman 
province,  and  governed  for  a  considerable  space  by  Procu 
rators.  (92)  However,  after  a  while,  the  various  dominions 
of  Herod  the  Great  were  reunited  in  the  person  of  his 
grandson,  Agrippa,  the  son  of  Aristobulus  and  brother  of 
Herodias ;  who  was  allowed  the  title  of  king,  and  was  in 
favor  with  both  Caligula  and  Claudius.  (93J  It  cannot  be 
doubted  that  this  person  is  the  "  Herod  the  king  "  of  the 
Acts,1  whose  persecution  of  the  Church,  whose  impious 
pride,  and  whose  miserable  death  are  related  at  length  by 
the  sacred  historian.  My  hearers  are  probably  familiar 
with  that  remarkable  passage  of  Josephus  in  which  he 
records  with  less  accuracy  of  detail  than  St.  Luke  the 
striking  circumstances  of  this  monarch's  decease  —  the 
"set  day"  —  the  public  assemblage  —  the  "royal  dress"  — 
the  impious  flattery  —  its  complacent  reception  —  the  sud 
den  judgment  —  the  excruciating  disease  —  the  speedy 
death.  (94)  No  where  does  profane  history  furnish  a  more 
striking  testimony  to  the  substantial  truth  of  the  sacred 
narrative  —  nowhere  is  the  superior  exactness  of  the  latter 
over  the  former  more  conspicuous. 
1  Acts  xii.  i. 


LECT.  VII.     TRUTH   OF  THE   SCRIPTURE  RECORDS.  199 

On  the  death  of  Herod  Agrippa,  Judaea  (as  Josephus 
informs  us)  became  once  more  a  Roman  province  under 
Procurators ;  (95>  but  the  small  kingdom  of  Chalcis  was,  a 
few  years  later,  conferred  by  Claudius  on  this  Herod's  son, 
Agrippa  the  Second,  who  afterwards  received  other  terri 
tories.  (96>  This  prince  is  evidently  the  "king  Agrippa" 
before  whom  St.  Paul  pleaded  his  cause.1  The  Bernice 
who  is  mentioned  as  accompanying  him  on  his  visit  to  Fes- 
tus,2  was  his  sister,  who  lived  with  him  and  commonly 
accompanied  him  upon  his  journeys.  (97>  Besides  his  sep 
arate  sovereignty,  he  had  received  from  the  Emperor  a 
species  of  ecclesiastical  supremacy  in  Judaea,  where  he  had 
the  superintendence  of  the  temple,  the  direction  of  the 
sacred  treasury,  and  the  right  of  nominating  the  High 
Priests.  (98)  These  circumstances  account  sufficiently  for 
his  visit  to  Judaea,  and  explain  the  anxiety  of  Festus  that 
he  should  hear  St.  Paul,  and  St.  Paul's  willingness  to  plead 
before  him. 

The  Roman  Procurators,  Pontius  Pilate,  Felix,  and  Fes 
tus,  are  prominent  personages  in  the  history  of  Josephus, 
where  they  occur  in  the  proper  chronological  position,  (") 
and  bear  characters  very  agreeable  to  those  which  are 
assigned  them  by  the  sacred  writers.  The  vacillation  of 
Pilate,  his  timidity,  and  at  the  same  time  his  occasional 
violence,  (10°)  the  cruelty,  injustice,  and  rapacity  of  Felix,  (101) 
and  the  comparatively  equitable  and  mild  character  of  Fes 
tus^102)  are  apparent  in  the  Jewish  historian;  and  have 
some  sanction  from  other  writers.  (103>  The  character  of 
Gallic,  proconsul  of  Achaia(104)  and  brother  of  the  philoso 
pher  Seneca,  is  also  in  close  accordance  with  that  which 
may  be  gathered  from  the  expressions  of  Seneca  and  Sta 
tins,  who  speak  of  him  as  "delightful"  or  " charming." (105> 

1  Acts  xxv.  13,  et  seqq.  8  Ibid. 


200  HISTORICAL  EVIDENCES  OF  THE         LECT.  VII. 

Of  Quirinus  (or  Cyrenius)  it  is  enough  to  say  that  he  was 
President  of  Syria  shortly  after  the  deposition  of  Arche- 
laus,  and  that  he  was  certainly  sent  to  effect  a  "taxing"  or 
enrolment  of  all  persons  within  his  province,  Palestine 
included.  (106)  Sergius  Paulus  is  unknown  to  us  except 
from  St.  Luke's  account  of  him;1  but  his  name  is  one  which 
was  certainly  borne  by  Romans  of  this  period,  (107)  and  his 
office  is  designated  correctly.  (108) 

The  Greek  tetrarch,  Lysanias,  is  the  only  civil  governor 
mentioned  in  the  New  Testament  about  whom  there  is  any 
real  difficulty.  A  Lysanias  held  certainly  a  government  in 
these  parts  in  the  time  of  Antony ;  (109)  but  this  person  was 
put  to  death  more  than  thirty  years  before  the  birth  of 
Christ,  (u°)  and  therefore  cannot  be  the  prince  mentioned 
as  ruling  over  Abilene  thirty  years  after  Christ's  birth.  It 
is  argued  that  St.  Luke  "  erred,"  being  misled  by  the  cir 
cumstance  that  the  region  continued  to  be  known  as  "  the 
Abilene  of  Lysanias"  down  to  the  time  of  the  second 
Agrippa.C111)  But,  on  the  other  hand,  it  is  allowed  that  a 
second  Lysanias  might  have  existed  without  obtaining  men 
tion  from  profane  writers ;  (112)  and  the  facts,  that  Abilene 
was  in  Agrippa's  time  connected  with  the  name  Lysanias, 
and  that  there  is  no  reason  to  believe  that  it  formed  any 
part  of  the  dominions  of  the  first  Lysanias,  favor  the  view, 
that  a  second  Lysanias,  a  descendant  of  the  first,  obtained 
from  Augustus  or  Tiberius  an  investiture  of  the  tract  in 
question.C113) 

III.  It  now  only  remains  to  touch  briefly  on  a  few  of  the 
remarkable  facts  in  the  New  Testament  narrative  which 
might  have  been  expected  to  attract  the  attention  of  pro 
fane  historians,  and  of  which  we  should  naturally  look  to 
have  some  record.  Such  facts  are  the  "  decree  from  Ca3sar 

1  Acts  xiii.  7-12. 


LECT.  VII.      TRUTH   OF   THE   SCRIPTURE  RECORDS.  201 

Augustus  that  all  the  world  should  be  taxed"1  —  the  "tax 
ing"  of  Cyrenius2  —  the  preaching  and  death  of  John  the 
Baptist — our  Lord's  execution  as  a  criminal — the  adultery 
of  Herod  Antipas  —  the  disturbances  created  by  the  impos 
tors  Theudas  and  Judas  of  Galilee3  —  the  death  of  Herod 
Agrippa  —  the  famine  in  the  days  of  Claudius4  —  and  the 
"uproar"  of  the  Egyptian  who  "led  out  into  the  wilderness 
four  thousand  men  that  were  murderers."5  Of  these  events 
almost  one  half  have  been  already  shown  to  have  been 
recorded  by  profane  writers  whose  works  are  still  ex 
tant.  (114)  The  remainder  will  now  be  considered  with  the 
brevity  which  my  limits  necessitate. 

It  has  been  asserted  that  no  "taxing  of  all  the  world"  — 
that  is,  of  the  whole  Roman  Empire  —  took  place  in  the 
time  of  Augustus ;  (115>  but  as  the  opposite  view  is  main 
tained  by  SavignyC116) —  the  best  modern  authority  upon 
Roman  law  —  this  assertion  cannot  be  considered  to  need 
examination  here.  A  far  more  important  objection  to  St. 
Luke's  statement  is  derived  from  the  time  at  which  this 
"taxing"  is  placed  by  him.  Josephus  mentions  the  exten 
sion  of  the  Roman  census  to  Juda?a  under  Cyrenius,  at  least 
ten  years  later  —  after  the  removal  of  Archelaus,  (117)  and 
seems  to  speak  of  this  as  the  first  occasion  on  which  his 
countrymen  were  compelled  to  submit  to  this  badge  of  sub 
jection.  It  is  argued  that  this  must  have  been  the  first 
occasion ;  and  the  words  of  St.  Luke  (it  is  said)  —  "  this 
taxing  was  first  made  when  Cyrenius  was  governor  of 
Syria"  —  show  that  he  intended  the  taxing  mentioned  by 
Josephus,  which  he  consequently  misdated  by  a  decade  of 
years.  (118)  But  the  meaning  of  the  passage  in  St.  Luke  is 
doubtful  in  the  extreme ;  and  it  admits  of  several  explana- 

1  Luke  ii.  1.  *  Ibid,  verse  2.  3  Acts  v.  36,  37. 

4  Ibid.  xi.  28.  6  Ibid.  xxi.  38. 


202  HISTORICAL  EVIDENCES  OP  THE          LECT.  VII. 

tions  which  reconcile  it  with  all  that  Josephus  says.  (119) 
Perhaps  the  best  explanation  is  that  of  Whiston  (12°)  and 
Prideaux  (121) —  that  the  design  of  Augustus  was  first  fully 
executed  (lytveTo)  when  Cyrenius  was  governor,  though 
the  decree  went  forth  and  the  enrolment  commenced  ten 
years  earlier. 

The  taxing  of  Cyrenius  of  which  St.  Luke  speaks  in  this 
passage,  and  to  which  he  also  alludes  in  the  Acts,1  is  (as  we 
have  seen)  very  fully  narrated  by  Josephus.  It  caused  the 
rebellion  mentioned  in  Gamaliel's  speech,  which  was 
headed  by  Judas  of  Galilee,  who  "  drew  away  much  people 
after  him,"  but  "  perished,"  —  all,  as  many  as  obeyed  him, 
being  "  dispersed." 2  This  account  harmonizes  well  with 
that  of  Josephus,  who  regards  the  followers  of  Judas  as 
numerous  enough  to  constitute  a  sect,  (122)  and  notes  their 
reappearance  in  the  course  of  the  last  war  with  Rome,  by 
which  it  is  shown  that  though  scattered  they  had  not 
ceased  to  exist.  (123> 

The  disturbance  created  by  a  certain  Theudas,  some 
time  before  the  rebellion  of  Judas  of  Galilee,  seems  not  to 
be  mentioned  by  any  ancient  author.  The  identity  of  name 
is  a  very  insufficient  ground  for  assuming  this  impostor  to 
be  the  same  as  the  Theudas  of  Josephus,  (124)  who  raised 
troubles  in  the  procuratorship  of  Cuspius  Fadus,  about  ten 
years  after  Gamaliel  made  his  speech.  There  were,  as 
Josephus  says,  (125)  "  innumerable  disturbances "  in  Judaea 
about  this  time  ;  and  it  is  not  at  all  improbable  that  within 
the  space  of  forty  years,  during  which  a  number  of  impos 
tors  gathered  .followers  and  led  them  to  destruction,  two 
should  have  borne  the  same  name.  Nor  can  it  be  consid 
ered  surprising  that  Josephus  has  passed  over  the  earlier 
Theudas,  since  his  followers  were  only  four  hundred,  and 

1  Acts  v.  37.  2  Ibid,  verse  36. 


LECT.  VH.      TRUTH  OF  THE  SCRIPTURE  RECORDS.  203 

since  the  historian  evidently  omits  all  but  the  most  impor 
tant  of  the  troubles  which  had  afflicted  his  country. 

The  "  uproar "  of  the  Egyptian  who  "  led  out  into  the 
wilderness  four  thousand  men  that  were  murderers,"1 
is  described  at  length  by  the  Jewish  writer,  (126)  the  only 
noticeable  difference  between  his  account  and  that  of  St. 
Luke  being  that  Josephus  in  his  present  text  calls  the 
number  of  this  impostor's  followers  thirty  thousand.  From 
internal  evidence  there  is  reason  to  think  that  rQiafitQiot  is 
a  corrupt  reading ;  (12?)  but  even  as  the  text  stands,  it  does 
not  contradict  St.  Luke  ;  for  the  four  thousand  of  St.  Luke 
are  the  number  whom  the  impostor  "  led  out  into  the  wil 
derness,"  while  the  thirty  thousand  of  Josephus  are  the 
number  whom  he  "brought  from  the  wilderness"  to  attack 
Jerusalem. 

The  "  famine  in  the  days  of  Claudius  "  3  is  mentioned  by 
several  writers.  Josephus  tells  us  that  it  was  severe  in 
Palestine  in  the  fourth  year  of  this  emperor ;  Dio,  Tacitus, 
and  Suetonius,  speak  of  it  as  raging  somewhat  later  in 
Rome  itself.  (128>  Helena,  queen  of  Adiabene  —  the  richest 
portion  of  the  ancient  Assyria  —  brought  relief  to  the  Jews 
on  the  occasion,  as  St.  Barnabas  and  St.  Paul  did  to  the 
Christians.3  The  agreement  is  here  complete,  even  if  the 
words  of  Agabus's  prophecy  are  pressed  —  for  the  scarcity 
seems  to  have  been  general  throughout  the  Empire. 

This  review  —  imperfect  as  it  necessarily  is  —  will  proba 
bly  be  felt  to  suffice  for  our  present  purpose.  We  have 
found  that  the  New  Testament,  while  in  its  main  narrative 
it  treats  of  events  with  which  heathen  writers  were  not  likely 
to  concern  themselves,  and  which  they  could  not  represent 
truly,  contains  —  inextricably  interwoven  with  that  main 
narrative  —  a  vast  body  of  incidental  allusions  to  the  civil 

1  Acts  xxi.  38.  2  Ibid.  xi.  28.  3  Ibid,  verses  29,  30. 


204  HISTORICAL  EVIDENCES   OP  THE  LECT.  VII. 

history  of  the  times,  capable  of  being  tested  by  comparison 
with  the  works  of  profane  historians.  We  have  submitted 
the  greater  part  —  or  at  any  rate  a  great  part  —  of  these 
incidental  allusions  to  the  test  of  such  comparison ;  and  we 
have  found,  in  all  but  some  three  or  four  cases,  an  entire 
and  striking  harmony.  In  no  case  have  we  met  with  clear 
and  certain  disagreement ;  sometimes,  but  very  rarely,  the 
accounts  are  difficult  to  reconcile,  and  we  may  suspect 
them  of  real  disagreement  —  a  result  which  ought  not  to 
cause  us  any  astonishment.  Profane  writers  are  not  infalli 
ble  ;  and  Josephus,  our  chief  profane  authority  for  the  time, 
has  been  shown,  in  matters  where  he  does  not  come  into 
any  collision  with  the  Christian  Scriptures,  to  "  teem  with 
inaccuracies."  (129)  If  in  any  case  it  should  be  thought  that 
we  must  choose  between  Josephus  and  an  Evangelist, 
sound  criticism  requires  that  we  should  prefer  the  latter  to 
the  former.  Josephus  is  not  entirely  honest :  he  has  his 
Roman  masters  to  please,  and  he  is  prejudiced  in  favor  of 
his  own  sect,  the  Pharisees.  He  has  also  been  convicted 
of  error,  (130>  which  is  not  the  case  with  any  Evangelist. 
His  authority  therefore  is,  in  the  eyes  of  an  historical  critic, 
inferior  to  that  of  the  Gospel  writers,  and  in  any  instance  of 
contradiction,  it  would  be  necessary  to  disregard  it.  In 
fact,  however,  we  are  not  reduced  to  this  necessity.  The 
Jewish  writer  nowhere  actually  contradicts  our  Scriptures, 
and  in  hundreds  of  instances  he  confirms  them.  It  is 
evident  that  the  entire  historical  framework,  in  which  the 
Gospel  picture  is  set,  is  real ;  that  the  facts  of  the  civil  his 
tory,  small  and  great,  are  true,  and  the  personages  correctly 
depicted.  To  suppose  that  there  is  this  minute  historical 
accuracy  in  all  the  accessories  of  the  story,  and  that  the 
story  itself  is  mythic,  is  absurd ;  unless  we  will  declare  the 
Apostles  and  their  companions  to  have  sought  to  palm 


LECT.  VII.      TRUTH  OP  THE  SCRIPTURE  RECORDS.  205 

upon  mankind  a  tale  which  they  knew  to  be  false,  and  to 
have  aimed  at  obtaining  credit  for  their  fiction  by  elaborate 
attention  to  these  minutia3.  From  such  an  avowal  even 
Rationalism  itself  would  shrink ;  but  the  only  alternative  is 
to  accept  the  entire  history  as  authentic  —  as,  what  the 
Church  has  always  believed  it  to  be,  THE  TRUTH.  "All 
truth  is  contained  in  the  Gospel."  (131)  "  It  is  but  just,  that 
he  who  was  worthy  of  the  title  of  an  Evangelist,  should  be 
exempt  from  all  suspicion  of  either  negligence  or  false 
hood."  (132)  "  The  Evangelists  had  perfect  knowledge,  .  .  . 
and  if  any  one  does  not  yield  his  assent  to  them,  he  contemns 
those  who  were  partners  of  the  Lord,  he  contemns  Christ 
himself,  he  contemns  also  the  Father."1^33)  Such  has  been 
the  uniform  teaching  of  the  Church  of  Christ  from  the  first 
—  and  modern  Rationalism  has  failed  to  show  any  reason 
why  we  should  reject  it. 

1  "  Veritas  omnis  in  Evangelic  continetur."  "  Ab  hoc,  qui  Evange- 
lista  esse  meruit,  vel  negligently  vel  mendacii  suspicionem  scquum  est 
propulsari."  "  Evangelists  habuerunt  perfectam  agnitionem  .  .  .  qui- 
bus  si  quis  non  assentit,  spernit  quidem  participes  Domini,  spernit  et 
ipsum  Christum,  spernit  et  Patrem." 

18 


LECTURE    VIII. 

THE   PHARISEES   THEREFORE   SAID   UNTO   HIM,   THOU  BEAREST  RECORD   OF 

THYSELF;   THY  RECORD   is  NOT  TRUE.     JESUS  ANSWERED  AND  SAID 

UNTO    THEM,  THOUGH   I   BEAR   RECORD   OF   MYSELF,  YET  MY  RECORD   IS 
TRUE.  —  JOHN  VIII.  13,  14. 

IF  the  evidence  from  profane  sources  to  the  primary 
facts  of  the  New  Testament  narrative  be,  as  was  admitted 
in  the  last  Lecture,  disappointingly  scanty,  the  defect  is 
more  than  made  up  to  us  by  the  copious  abundance  of 
those  notices  which  early  Christian  writers  have  left  us  of 
the  whole  series  of  occurrences  forming  the  basis  of  our 
Religion.  It  has  been  customary  with  Christian  apologists 
to  dwell  more  especially  on  the  profane  testimony,  despite 
its  scantiness  —  doubtless  because  it  has  been  felt  that  a 
certain  amount  of  suspicion  is  regarded  as  attaching  to 
those  who  "  bear  record  of  themselves,"  and  that  the  evi 
dence  of  Christian  witnesses  to  the  truth  of  Christianity  is 
in  some  degree  a  record  of  this  nature.  But  our  Lord's 
words  teach  us  that  self-witness,  however  unconvincing  to 
the  adversary,  may  be  valid  and  true;  and  certainly  it 
is  difficult  to  conceive  how  the  full  acceptance  of  the 
Christian  facts,  and  conformity  of  the  profession  and  life 
thereto,  renders  a  witness  unworthy  of  belief,  whose  testi 
mony  would  have  been  regarded  as  of  the  highest  value  if 
he  had  stopped  short  of  such  acceptance,  and  while  admit 
ting  the  facts  to  a  certain  extent  had  remained  a  Heathen 

(206) 


LECT.  VIII.       TRUTH   OF  THE   SCRIPTURE  RECORDS.  207 

or  a  Jew.  Had  Justin  Martyr,  for  instance,  when  he  in 
quired  into  Christianity,  found  the  evidence  for  it  such  as 
he  could  resist,  and  lived  and  died  a  Platonic  philosopher, 
instead  of  renouncing  all  for  Christ  and  finally  sealing  his 
testimony  with  his  blood,  what  a  value  would  have  been 
set  upon  any  recognition  in  his  writings  of  the  life  and 
miracles  of  Christ  or  the  sufferings  of  the  early  Christians ! 
It  is  difficult  to  see  why  he  deserves  less  credit,  because  he 
found  the  evidences  for  the  Christian  doctrine  so  strong 
that  he  felt  compelled  to  become  a  believer.  C1)  At  any 
rate,  if  for  controversial  purposes  the  argument  derivable 
from  the  testimony  of  Christians  be  viewed  as  weak,  it 
must  possess  a  weight  for  those  who  believe  far  exceeding 
that  of  the  witness  of  Jews  and  Heathens,  and  must  there 
fore  deserve  a  place  in  any  summary  that  is  made  of  the 
Historical  Evidences  to  the  truth  of  the  Christian  Religion. 
It  has  been  sometimes  urged  that  the  early  Christians 
were  persons  of  such  low  rank  and  station,  so  wanting  in 
refinement,  education,  and  that  critical  discernment  which 
is  requisite  to  enable  men  fairly  to  judge  of  the  claims  of  a 
new  religion,  that  their  decision  in  favor  of  Christianity  is 
entitled  to  little  respect  —  since  they  must  have  been  quite 
unable  to  appreciate  the  true  value  of  its  evidences.  (2) 
This  objection  claims  to  base  itself  on  certain  admissions 
of  the  earliest  Christian  preachers  themselves,  who  remark 
that  "  not  many  wise  men  after  the  flesh,  not  many  mighty, 
not  many  noble,  were  called."1  But  such  expressions  are 
not  to  be  pressed  too  far.  In  their  very  letter  they  do  but 
declare  the  general  condition  of  the  converts ;  while  they 
imply  that  there  were,  even  in  the  first  times,  some  excep 
tions  —  persons  to  whom  the  terms,  "  wise  men  after  the 
flesh,  mighty,  and  noble,"  might  have  been  properly  ap- 

1  1  Cor.  i.  26. 


208  HISTORICAL  EVIDENCES  OF  THE       LECT.  VIIL 

plied ;  and  the  examples  of  St.  Paul  himself,  of  Dionysius 
the  Areopagite,  of  the  Ethiopian  eunuch,  of  "  Erastus  the 
chamberlain  of  the  city," l  and  of  the  converts  from  "  Caesar's 
household," 2  are  sufficient  to  show  that  the  Gospel  found 
its  own  in  every  rank  and  grade  of  society,  and  if  it  was 
embraced  most  readily  by  the  poor  and  despised,  still 
gathered  to  it  "  chosen  vessels  " 3  from  among  the  educated, 
and  occasionally  from  among  the  rich  and  great.  The 
early  Christians  furnished,  for  their  number,  a  considera 
ble  body  of  writers ;  and  these  writers  will  bear  compari 
son  in  respect  of  every  intellectual  qualification  with  the 
best  Heathen  authors  of  the  period.  Justin  Martyr,  Athe- 
nagoras,  Tertullian,  Origen,  Clement,  would  have  been 
reckoned  authors  of  eminence,  had  they  not  been  "  Fathers," 
and  are  at  least  as  good  evidence  for  the  historical  facts  of 
the  age  immediately  preceding  their  own,  as  Tacitus,  Sue 
tonius,  and  Dio.  It  will  be  my  object  in  the  present 
Lecture  to  show  that  these  writers,  and  others  of  the  same 
age  or  even  earlier,  bear  copious  witness  to  the  facts  re 
corded  in  the  historical  books  of  the  New  Testament,  and 
are  plainly  as  convinced  of  their  reality  as  of  that  of  any 
facts  whatever  which  they  have  occasion  to  mention. 

The  Epistle  ascribed  to  St.  Barnabas  by  Clement  of 
Alexandria  (3)  and  Origen,  (4)  whether  really  the  work  of 
that  person  or  no,  is  at  any  rate  one  of  the  most  ancient  of 
the  uninspired  Christian  writings,  belonging  as  it  does  to 
the  first,  or  to  the  early  part  of  the  second  century.  (5> 
The  writer's  object  is  to  explain  the  spiritual  meaning  of 
the  Old  Testament ;  and  in  the  course  of  his  exposition  he 
mentions  as  undoubted  facts  the  miracles  of  Christ  —  his 
appointment  of  his  apostles  —  their  number,  twelve  —  his 
scourging  —  his  being  smitten  on  the  face  —  his  being  set 

1  Bom.  xvi.  23.  2  Philipp.  iv.  22.  3  Acts  ix.  15. 


LECT.  VIII        TRUTH   OF  THE   SCRIPTURE  RECORDS.  209 

at  nought  and  jested  upon  —  his  being  arrayed  in  a  scarlet 
robe  —  his  crucifixion  —  his  receiving  gall  and  vinegar  to 
drink  —  his  death  —  the  casting  of  lots  upon  his  garment  — 
his  resurrection  on  the  first  day  of  the  week  —  and  his 
final  ascension  into  heaven.  (r>)  All  these  notices  moreover 
occur  in  a  small  tract,  chiefly  concerned  with  the  Old  Tes 
tament,  and  extending  to  no  more  than  ten  or  twelve 
ordinary  pages. 

An  Epistle  of  St.  Clement,  Bishop  of  Rome,  to  the 
Corinthians,  is  allowed  on  all  hands  to  be  genuine.  (7>  This 
work  was  certainly  composed  in  the  first  century,  before 
some  of  the  writings  of  St.  John ;  and  its  author,  the 
"  fellow-laborer  "  of  St.  Paul,1  must  have  had  frequent  com 
munication  with  those  who  had  witnessed  the  great  events 
in  Judaga  which  formed  the  foundation  of  the  new  religion. 
The  object  of  the  Epistle  is  to  compose  existing  dissensions 
in  the  Corinthian  Church,  and  its  tone  is  from  first  to  last 
hortatory  and  didactic.  Historical  allusions  only  find  a 
place  in  it  casually  and  incidentally.  Yet  it  contains  a 
mention  of  Christ's  descent  from  Jacob,  of  his  great  power 
and  regal  dignity,  his  voluntary  humiliation,  his  sufferings, 
the  character  of  his  teaching,  his  death  for  man,  his  resur 
rection,  the  mission  of  the  apostles,  their  inspiration  by  the 
Holy  Ghost,  their  preaching  in  many  lands,  their  ordination 
of  elders  in  every  city,  the  special  eminence  in  the  Church 
of  Saints  Peter  and  Paul,  the  sufferings  of  St.  Peter,  the 
hardships  endured  by  St.  Paul,  his  distant  travels,  his  many 
imprisonments,  his  flights,  his  stoning,  his  bonds,  his  testi 
mony  before  rulers.  (8)  The  fact  of  St.  Paul's  having 
written  an  Epistle  to  the  Corinthians  is  also  asserted ;  (9> 
and  an  allusion  is  made,  in  connection  with  that  Epistle,  to 
the  early  troubles  and  divisions  which  the  great  Apostle 

1  Philipp.  iv.  3. 

18* 


210  HISTORICAL  EVIDENCES  OP  THE        LECT.  VIII. 

had  composed,  when  the  several  sections  of  the  newly- 
planted  Church  strove  together  in  a  jealous  spirit,  affirming 
themselves  to  be  "of  Paul,"  or  "of  Apollos,"  or  "of 
Cephas,"  or  even  "  of  Christ." 

Ignatius,  second  Bishop  of  Antioch,  who  succeeded  to 
that  see  in  about  the  year  of  the  destruction  of  Jerusa 
lem,  (10)  and  was  martyred  nearly  forty  years  later,  A.  D. 
107,  (n)  left  behind  him  certain  writings,  which  are  quoted 
with  great  respect  by  subsequent  Fathers,  but  the  existence 
of  which  at  the  present  day  is  questioned.  Writings  under 
the  name  of  Ignatius  have  come  down  to  us  in  various 
shapes.  Three  Epistles,  universally  regarded  as  spu 
rious,  (12>  exist  only  in  Latin.  Twelve  others  are  found  in 
Greek,  and  also  in  two  ancient  Latin  versions;  and  of 
these,  seven  exist  in  two  different  forms  —  a  longer,  and  a 
shorter  one.  Most  modern  critics  accept  these  seven,  in 
their  shorter  form,  as  genuine.  (13>  They  are  identical  with 
the  seven  mentioned  by  Eusebius  and  Jerome,  (14)  and  they 
are  thought  to  be  free  from  the  internal  difficulties,  which 
cause  suspicion  to  attach  to  the  longer  recension,  as  well  as 
to  the  Epistles  which  those  writers  do  not  name.  Doubts 
have,  however,  been  recently  started  even  with  respect  to 
these  seven.  The  discovery  in  a  very  ancient  MS.  of  a 
Syriac  version  of  three  Epistles  only  out  of  the  seven, 
and  these  three  in  a  still  briefer  form  than  that  of  the 
shorter  Greek  recension,  together  with  the  remarkable  fact 
that  the  few  early  references  which  we  possess  to  the  writ 
ings  of  Ignatius  are  to  passages  in  exactly  these  three 
compositions  —  has  induced  some  learned  men  of  our  own 
day  to  adopt  the  view,  that  even  the  shorter  Greek  recen 
sion  is  largely  interpolated,  and  that  nothing  beyond  the 
three  Epistles  of  the  Syriac  version  can  be  depended  upon 
as  certainly  written  by  the  Antiochian  Bishop.  (15>  If  we 


LECT.  VIII.       TRUTH  OF  THE  SCRIPTURE  RECORDS.  211 

adopt  this  opinion,  the  testimony  of  Ignatius  to  the  histori 
cal  truth  of  the  New  Testament  narrative  will  be  somewhat 
scanty  —  if  we  abide  by  the  views  generally  prevalent  be 
fore  the  Syriac  version  was  discovered,  and  still  maintained 
since  that  discovery  by  some  divines  of  great  learning  and 
excellent  judgment,  (1G>  it  will  be  as  full  and  satisfactory  as 
that  borne  by  St.  Clement.  In  the  seven  Epistles  we  find 
notices  of  the  descent  of  Christ  from  David — his  concep 
tion  by  the  Holy  Ghost  —  his  birth  of  a  virgin  —  her  name, 
Mary  —  his  manifestation  by  a  star  —  his  baptism  by  John 
—  its  motive,  "that  he  might  fulfil  all  righteousness"1  — 
his  appeals  to  the  Prophets  —  the  anointing  of  his  head 
with  ointment  —  his  sufferings  and  crucifixion  under  Pon 
tius  Pilate  and  Herod  the  tetrarch  —  his  resurrection,  not 
on  the  Sabbath,  but  on  the  "  Lord's  day "  —  the  resurrec 
tion  through  his  power  of  some  of  the  old  prophets  —  his 
appearance  to  his  disciples  and  command  to  them  to  "  han 
dle  him  and  see"2  that  he  was  not  a  spirit — his  eating  and 
drinking  with  them  after  he  had  risen  —  the  mission  of  the 
Apostles  —  their  obedience  to  Christ  —  their  authority  over 
the  Church  —  the  inclusion  of  Saints  Peter  and  Paul  in 
their  number.  (17)  If,  on  the  contrary,  we  confine  ourselves 
to  the  Syriac  version  —  by  which  the  entire  writings  of  St. 
Ignatius  are  comprised  in  about  five  pages  (18) — we  lose  the 
greater  portion  of  these  testimonies,  but  we  still  retain  those 
to  the  birth  of  Christ  from  the  Virgin  Mary — his  manifesta 
tion  by  a  star  —  his  many  sufferings  —  his  crucifixion — and 
the  apostolic  mission  of  Saints  Peter  and  Paul. 

Polycarp,  Bishop  of  Smyrna,  a  disciple  of  St.  John,  and 
a  younger  contemporary  of  Ignatius,  left  behind  him  a  sin 
gle  Epistle,  addressed  to  the  Philippians,  which  we  possess 
in  the  original  Greek,  with  the  exception  of  three  or  four 

1  Matt.  iii.  15.  «  Luke  xxiv.  39. 


212  HISTORICAL  EVIDENCES  OP  THE         LECT.  VIII. 

sections,  where  the  Greek  text  is  wanting,  and  we  have 
only  a  Latin  version.  (19)  In  this  Epistle,  which  is  a  short 
composition,  and,  like  the  other  remains  of  early  Christian 
antiquity,  of  a  hortatory  character,  we  find  allusions  to  the 
humble  life  of  Christ,  his  ministering  to  those  about  him, 
the  character  of  his  preaching,  his  sufferings,  death  upon 
the  cross,  resurrection,  and  ascension  to  heaven ;  his  prom 
ise  to  "  raise  up  his  disciples  at  the  last  day  " :  —  the  suffer 
ings  of  St.  Paul  and  the  other  Apostles,  the  preaching  of 
St.  Paul  at  Philippi,  and  the  fact  of  his  having  written  an 
Epistle  to  the  Philippians.(2°)  We  also  learn  from  Irenams 
that  this  Father  used  to  relate  his  conversations  with  St. 
John  and  others,  who  had  seen  the  Lord,  and  to  repeat 
what  they  had  told  him  both  of  the  teaching  and  miracles 
of  Jesus.  (21) 

A  work  of  the  first  or  earlier  half  of  the  second  century 
has  come  down  to  us  under  the  name  of  "  The  Shepherd  of 
Hernias."  Eusebius  and  Jerome  ascribe  it  to  the  Hernias 
who  is  saluted  by  St.  Paul  at  the  end  of  his  Epistle  to  the 
Romans ;  C22)  but  there  are  reasons  for  assigning  it  to  a  later 
Hennas  —  the  brother  of  Pius,  who  was  the  ninth  bishop 
of  Rome.  (23)  This  work  is  an  allegory  on  a  large  scale,  and 
consequently  cannot  contain  any  direct  historical  testimony. 
Its  tone  is  consonant  with  the  Christian  story,  and  it  con 
tains  some  allusions  to  the  mission  of  the  Apostles,  their  trav 
els  for  the  purpose  of  spreading  the  truth  over  the  world, 
and  the  sufferings  to  which  they  were  exposed  in  conse 
quence  ;  (24)  but  on  the  whole  it  is  of  little  service  towards 
establishing  the  truth  of  any  facts. 

It  was  not  until  the  Christian  writers  addressed  them 
selves  to  the  world  without — and  either  undertook  the  task 
of  refuting  the  adversaries  of  the  truth,  or  sought  by  Apolo- 

1  John  vi.  40. 


LECT.  Yin.     TRUTH  OF  THE  SCRIPTURE  RECORDS.          213 

gics  to  recommend  the  new  religion  to  their  acceptance  — 
that  the  facts  of  the  Christian  story  came  naturally  to  oc 
cupy  a  prominent  place  in  their  compositions.  Quadratus, 
Bishop  of  Athens  in  the  early  part  of  the  second  century, 
was,  so  far  as  we  know,  the  first  to  write  a  defence  of 
Christianity  addressed  to  the  Heathen,  which  he  seems  to 
have  presented  to  the  Emperor  Adrian  (25>  about  the  year 
A.  D.  122.  This  work  is  unfortunately  lost,  but  a  passage 
preserved  by  Eusebius  gives  us  an  indication  of  the  sort  of 
evidence  which  it  would  probably  have  furnished  in  abun 
dance.  "  The  works  of  our  Saviour,"  says  Quadratus,  "  were 
always  conspicuous, for  they  were  real;  both  they  which  were 
healed  and  they  which  were  raised  from  the  dead ;  who  were 
seen  not  only  when  they  were  healed  or  raised,  but  for  a  long 
time  afterwards ;  not  only  while  he  dwelt  on  this  earth,  but 
also  after  his  departure,  and  for  a  good  while  after  it ;  inso 
much  that  some  of  them  have  reached  to  our  times."  (26) 

About  twenty-five  years  after  Quadratus  had  presented 
his  "  Apology  "  to  Adrian,  his  younger  contemporary,  Jus 
tin,  produced  a  similar  composition,  which  he  presented  to 
the  first  Antonine,  probably  about  A.  D.  148.  (27>  Soon 
afterwards  he  published  his  "  Dialogue  with  Tryphon "  • 
an  elaborate  controversial  work,  defensive  of  Christianity 
from  the  attacks  of  Judaism.  Finally,  about  A.  D.  165,  or 
a  little  earlier,  he  wrote  a  second  "  Apology,"  which  he  pre 
sented  to  Marcus  Aurelius  and  the  Roman  Senate.  (2g)  It 
has  been  truly  observed,  that  from  the  writings  of  this 
Father  —  "the  earliest,  of  whose  works  we  possess  any  con 
siderable  remains  "C29) —  there  "might  be  collected  a  tolera 
bly  complete  account  of  Christ's  life,  in  all  points  agreeing 
with  that  which  is  delivered  in  our  Scriptures."  (30>  Justin 
declares  the  marringe  of  Mary  and  Joseph  —  their  descent 
from  David  —  the  miraculous  conception  of  Christ  —  the 


214  HISTORICAL   EVIDENCES   OF  THE         LECT.  VIII. 

intention  of  Joseph  to  put  away  his  wife  privily  —  the  ap 
pearance  to  him  of  an  angel  which  forbade  him  —  the 
angelic  determination  of  the  name  Jesus,  with  the  reason 
assigned  for  it  —  the  journey  from  Nazareth  to  Bethlehem 
— the  birth  of  our  Lord  there — his  lying  in  a  manger — his 
circumcision  —  the  extraordinary  appearance  of  a  star  — 
the  coming  of  the  Wise  Men  —  their  application  to  Herod 

—  their  adoration  and  gifts  —  the  warning  to  them  not  to 
return  to  Herod  —  the  descent  into  Egypt  —  the  massacre 
of  the  Innocents  —  the  death  of  Herod  and  accession  of 
Archelaus  —  the  return  from  Egypt  —  the   obscure   early 
life  of  Christ,  and  his  occupation  as  a  carpenter  —  his  bap 
tism  by  St.  John  the  Baptist  in  Jordan  —  the  descent  of 
the  Spirit  upon  him  in  the  form  of  a  dove  —  the  testimony 
borne  to  his  greatness  by  John  —  his  temptation  by  the 
devil  —  the  character  of  his  teaching  —  his  confutation  of 
his  opponents  —  his  miracles  —  his  prophecies  of  the  suffer 
ings  which  should  befall  his  disciples  —  his  changing  Si 
mon's  name  to  Peter,  and  the  occasion  of  it  —  his  naming 
the  sons  of  Zebedee,  Boanerges  — his  triumphal  entry  into 
Jerusalem  riding  upon  an  ass  —  his  institution  of  the  Eu 
charist —  his  singing  a  hymn  with  his  disciples  —  his  visit 
to  the  Mount  of  Olives  on  the  eve  of  his  crucifixion,  accom 
panied  by  the  three  favored  apostles,  and  the  prayer  there 
offered  to  the  Father — his  silence  before  Pilate — his  being 
sent  by  Pilate  to  Herod  —  his  sufferings  and  crucifixion  — 
the  mockery  of  those  who  stood  by  —  the  casting  of  lots 
for  the  garment  —  the  flight  of  the  apostles  —  the  words  on 
giving  up  the  ghost  —  the  burial  at  eventide  —  the  resur 
rection  on  the  third  day  —  the  appearances  to  the  apostles 

—  the  explanation  to  them  of  the  prophecies  —  the  ascen 
sion  into  heaven  as  they  were  looking  on  —  the  preaching 
of  the  apostles  afterwards  —  the  descent  of  the  Holy  Ghost 


LECT.  VIII.       TRUTH  OF  THE   SCRIPTURE  RECORDS.  215 

—  the  conversion  of  the  Gentiles  —  the  rapid  spread  of  the 
Gospel  through  all  lands.  (31>    No  one  can  pretend  to  doubt 
but  that  in  Justin's  time  the  facts  of  the  New  Testament 
History  were  received  as  simple  truth  —  not  only  by  him 
self,  but  by  Christians  generally,  in  whose  name  his  Apolo 
gies  were  written  and  presented  to  the  Roman  Emperors. 

It  is  needless  to  carry  this  demonstration  further,  or  to 
produce  similar  lists  from  Athenagoras,  Tertullian,  Irena3us, 
Origen,  and  others.  From  the  time  of  Justin  the  Church 
of  Christ  can  show  a  series  of  writers,  who  not  only  exhibit 
incidentally  their  belief  of  the  facts  which  form  the  basis 
of  the  Christian  Religion,  but  who  also  testify  explicitly 
to  the  universal  reception  among  Christians  of  that  narra 
tive  of  the  facts  which  we  possess  in  the  New  Testament 

—  a  narrative  which,  as  was  shown  in  the  last  Lecture,  C33) 
they  maintain  to  be  absolutely  and  in  all  respects  true. 
Those  who  assert  the  mythic  character  of  the  New  Testa 
ment  history,  must  admit  as  certain  that  its  mythic  charac 
ter  was  unsuspected  by  the  Christians  of  the  second  century, 
who  received  with  the  most   entire  and  simple  faith  the 
whole  mass  of  facts  put  forth  in  the  Gospels  and  the  Acts, 
regarding  them  as  real  and  actual  occurrences,  and  appeal 
ing  to  profane  history  for  their  confirmation  in  various  most 
important  particulars.     To  fair  and  candid  minds  the  evi 
dence  adduced  from  uninspired  writers  of  the  first  century, 
though  comparatively  scanty,  is  (I  think)  sufficient  to  show 
that  their  belief  was  the  same  as  that  of  Christians  in  the 
second,  and  that  it  was  just  as  firm  and  undoubting. 

The  arguments  hitherto  adduced  have  been  drawn  from 
the  literary  compositions  of  the  first  ages  of  Christianity. 
Till  recently  these  have  been  generally  regarded  as  pre 
senting  the  whole  existing  proof  of  the  faith  and  practice  of 
the  early  Church :  and  sceptics  have  therefore  been  eager  to 


216  HISTORICAL   EVIDENCES   OP  THE        LECT.  VIII. 

throw  every  possible  doubt  upon  them,  and  to  maintain 
that  forgery  and  interpolation  have  so  vitiated  this  source 
of  knowledge  as  to  render  it  altogether  untrustworthy.  (33> 
The  efforts  made,  weak  and  contemptible  as  they  are  felt 
to  be  by  scholars  and  critics,  have  nevertheless  had  a  cer 
tain  influence  over  the  general  tone  of  thought  on  the  sub 
ject,  and  have  caused  many  to  regard  the  early  infancy  of 
Christianity  as  a  dim  and  shadowy  cloud-land,  in  which 
nothing  is  to  be  seen,  except  a  few  figures  of  bishops  and 
martyrs  moving  uncertainly  amid  the  general  darkness. 
Under  these  circumstances  it  is  well  that  attention  should 
be  called  —  as  it  has  been  called  recently  by  several  publi 
cations  of  greater  or  less  research  (34)  —  to  the  monumental 
remains  of  early  Christian  times  which  are  still  extant,  and 
which  take  us  back  in  the  most  lively  way  to  the  first  ages 
of  the  Church,  exhibiting  before  our  eyes  those  primitive 
communities,  which  Apostles  founded,  over  which  Apos 
tolic  men  presided,  and  in  which  Confessors  and  Martyrs 
were  almost  as  numerous  as  ordinary  Christians.  As  when 
we  tread  the  streets  of  Pompeii,  we  have  the  life  of  the  old 
Pagan  world  brought  before  us  with  a  vividness  which 
makes  all  other  representations  appear  dull  and  tame,  so 
when  we  descend  into  the  Catacombs  of  Rome  we  seem  to 
see  the  struggling  persecuted  community,  which  there,  "  in 
dens  and  caves  of  the  earth,"1  wrought  itself  a  hidden 
home,  whence  it  went  forth  at  last  conquering  and  to  con 
quer,  triumphantly  establishing  itself  on  the  ruins  of  the  old 
religion,  and  bending  its  heathen  persecutors  to  the  yoke 
of  Christ.  Time  was  when  the  guiding  spirits  of  our  Church 
not  only  neglected  the  study  of  these  precious  remnants  of 
an  antiquity  which  ought  to  be  far  dearer  to  us  than  that  of 
Greece  or  Pagan  Rome,  of  Egypt,  Assyria,  or  Babylon  — 

1  Heb.  xi.  38. 


LECT.  VIII.       TRUTH   OF  THE  SCRIPTURE  RECORDS.  217 

but  even  ventured  to  speak  of  them  with  contempt,  as  the 
recent  creations  of  Papal  forgers,  who  had  placed  among 
the  arenarice  or  sandpits  of  heathen  times  the  pretended 
memorials  of  saints  who  were  never  born,  and  of  martyrs 
who  never  suffered.  (35)  But  with  increased  learning  and 
improved  candor  modern  Anglicanism  has  renounced 
this  shallow  and  untenable  theory;  and  it  is  at  length 
admitted  universally,  alike  by  the  Protestant  and  the 
Romanist,  that  the  Catacombs  themselves,  their  present 
contents,  and  the  series  of  inscriptions  which  have  been 
taken  from  them  and  placed  in  the  Papal  galleries,  are 
genuine  remains  of  primitive  Christian  antiquity,  and 
exhibit  to  us  —  imperfectly,  no  doubt,  but  so  far  as  their 
evidence  extends,  truly  —  the  condition  and  belief  of  the 
Church  of  Christ  in  the  first  ages. 

For  it  is  impossible  to  doubt  that  the  Catacombs  belong 
to  the  earliest  times  of  Christianity.  It  was  only  during 
the  ages  of  persecution  that  the  Christians  were  content  to 
hide  away  the  memorials  of  their  dead  in  gloomy  galleries 
deep  below  the  earth's  surface,  where  few  eyes  could  ever 
rest  on  them.  With  liberty  and  security  came  the  practice 
of  burying  within,  and  around,  the  churches,  which  grew 
up  on  all  sides ;  and  though  undoubtedly  the  ancient  burial 
places  would  not  have  been  deserted  all  at  once,  since 
habit  and  affection  would  combine  to  prevent  such  disuse, 
yet  still  from  the  time  of  Constantine  burying  in  the  Cata 
combs  must  have  been  on  the  decline,  and  the  bulk  of  the 
tombs  in  them  must  be  regarded  as  belonging  to  the  first 
three  centuries.  The  fixed  dates  obtainable  from  a  certain 
number  of  the  tombs  confirm  this  view ;  and  the  style  of 
ornamentation  and  form  of  the  letters  used  in  the  inscrip 
tions,  are  thought  to  be  additional  evidence  of  its  cor 
rectness. 

19 


218  HISTORICAL  EVIDENCES  OF  THE       LECT.  VIII. 

"What  then  is  the  evidence  of  the  Catacombs  ?  In  the 
first  place,  it  is  conclusive  as  to  the  vast  number  of  the 
Christians  in  these  early  ages,  when  there  was  nothing  to 
tempt  men,  and  every  thing  to  disincline  them,  towards  em 
bracing  the  persecuted  faith.  The  Catacombs  are  calcu 
lated  to  extend  over  nine  hundred  miles  of  streets,  and  to 
contain  almost  seven  millions  of  graves  !  t36)  The  Roman 
Christians,  it  will  be  remembered,  are  called  by  Tacitus  "  a 
vast  multitude "  — •  (ingens  multitude)  —  in  the  time  of 
Nero ;  C37)  by  the  age  of  Valerian  they  are  reckoned  at  one 
half  the  population  of  the  city;  (38)  but  the  historical  records 
of  the  past  have  never  been  thought  to  indicate  that  their 
number  approached  at  all  near  to  what  this  calculation  — 
which  seems  fairly  made  C39)  —  would  indicate.  Seven  mil 
lions  of  deaths  in  (say)  four  hundred  years  would,  under 
ordinary  circumstances^  imply  an  average  population  of 
from  five  hundred  thousand  to  seven  hundred  thousand  — 
an  amount  immensely  beyond  any  estimate  that  has  hith 
erto  been  made  of  the  number  of  Roman  Christians  at  any 
portion  of  the  period.  Perhaps  the  calculation  of  the 
number  of  graves  may  be  exaggerated,  and  probably  the 
proportion  of  deaths  to  population  was,  under  the  peculiar 
circumstances,  unusually  large ;  but  still  the  evidence  of 
vast  numbers  which  the  Catacombs  furnish  cannot  wholly 
mislead ;  and  we  may  regard  it  as  established  beyond  all 
reasonable  doubt,  that  in  spite  of  the  general  contempt  and 
hatred,  in  spite  of  the  constant  ill-usage  to  which  they  were 
exposed,  and  the  occasional  "fiery  trials"  which  proved 
them,  the  Christians,  as  early  as  the  second  century, 
formed  one  of  the  chief  elements  in  the  population  of 
Rome. 

In  the  next  place,  the  Catacombs  afford  proof  of  the 
dangers  and  sufferings  to  which  the  early  Christians  were 


LECT.  Vin         TRUTH  OF  THE  SCRIPTURE  RECORDS.  219 

exposed.  Without  assuming  that  the  phials  which  have 
contained  a  red  liquid,  found  in  so  many  of  the  tombs, 
must  have  held  blood,  and  that  therefore  they  are  certain 
signs  of  martyrdom,  and  without  regarding  the  palm- 
branch  as  unmistakable  evidence  of  the  same  (4°)  —  we  may 
find  in  the  Catacombs  a  good  deal  of  testimony  confirma 
tory  of  those  writers  who  estimate  at  the  highest  the  num 
ber  of  Christians  who  suffered  death  in  the  great  persecu 
tions.  The  number  of  graves,  if  we  place  it  at  the  lowest, 
compared  with  the  highest  estimate  of  the  Christian  popu 
lation  that  is  at  all  probable,  would  give  a  proportion  of 
deaths  to  population  enormously  above  the  average  —  a 
result  which  at  any  rate  lends  support  to  those  who  assert 
that  in  the  persecutions  of  Aurelius,  Decius,  Diocletian, 
and  others,  vast  multitudes  of  Christians  were  massacred. 
Further,  the  word  Martyr  is  frequent  upon  the  tombs ;  and 
often  where  it  is  absent,  the  inscription  otherwise  shows 
that  the  deceased  lost  his  life  on  account  of  his  religion.  (41> 
Sometimes  the  view  opens  on  us,  and  we  see,  besides  the 
individual  buried,  a  long  vista  of  similar  sufferers  —  as  when 
one  of  Aurelius's  victims  exclaims  —  "O  unhappy  times, 
in  which  amid  our  sacred  rites  and  prayers,  —  in  the  very 
caverns,  —  we  are  not  safe  !  What  is  more  wretched  than 
our  life  ?  What  more  wretched  than  a  death,  when  it  is 
impossible  to  obtain  burial  at  the  hands  of  friends  or 
relatives?  Still  at  the  end  they  shine  like  stars  in  Heaven. 
A  poor  life  is  his,  who  has  lived  in  Christian  times  ! " l  (42> 

Again,  the  Catacombs  furnish  a  certain  amount  of  evi 
dence  with  respect  to  the  belief  of  the  early  Christians. 

1  "  O  tempera  infausta !  quibus  inter  sacra  et  vota  ne  in  cavernis 
quidem  salvari  possimus.  Quid  miserius  vita  ?  Sed  quid  miserius  in 
morte,  cum  ab  amicis  et  parentibus  sepeliri  nequeant?  Tandem  in 
coelo  coruscant !  Parum  vixit  qui  vixit  in  Christianis  temporibus." 


220  HISTORICAL  EVIDENCES  OP  THE         LECT.  VIII. 

The  doctrine  of  the  resurrection  is  implied  or  expressed  on 
almost  every  tombstone  which  has  been  discovered.  The 
Christian  is  not  dead  —  he  "  rests  "  or  "  sleeps  "  —  he  is  not 
buried,  but  "  deposited"  in  his  grave  (43)  —  and  he  is  always 
"at  peace,"  (in pace.)  The  survivors  do  not  mourn  his  loss 
despairingly,  but  express  trust,  resignation,  or  moderate 
grief.  (44)  The  Anchor,  indicative  of  the  Christian's  "  sure 
and  certain  hope,"  is  a  common  emblem ;  and  the  Phoenix 
and  Peacock  are  used  as  more  speaking  signs  of  the  Resur 
rection.  The  Cross  appears,  though  not  the  Crucifix ;  and 
other  emblems  are  employed,  as  the  Dove  and  the  Cock, 
which  indicate  belief  in  the  sacred  narrative  as  we  possess 
it.  There  are  also  a  certain  number  of  pictures  in  the  Cata 
combs;  and  these  represent  ordinarily  historical  scenes 
from  the  Old  or  New  Testament,  treated  in  a  uniform  and 
conventional  way,  but  clearly  expressive  of  belief  in  the 
facts  thus  represented.  The  Temptation  of  Eve  —  Moses 
striking  the  rock  —  Noah  welcoming  the  return  of  the 
Dove  —  Elijah  ascending  to  heaven — Daniel  among  the 
lions  —  Shadrach,  Meshech,  and  Abednego  in  the  fiery 
furnace — Jonah  under  the  gourd  —  Jonah  swallowed  by 
the  whale  —  and  Jonah  vomited  out  on  the  dry  land,  are 
the  favorite  subjects  from  the  Old  Testament;  while  from 
the  New  Testament  we  find  the  Adoration  of  the  Wise 
Men — their  interview  with  Herod  —  the  Baptism  of  Christ 
by  John  the  Baptist  —  the  healing  of  the  Paralytic  —  the 
turning  of  the  water  into  wine  —  the  feeding  of  the  five 
thousand  —  the  raising  of  Lazarus  —  the  Last  Supper  — 
Peter  walking  on  the  sea  —  and  Pilate  washing  his  hands 
before  the  people.  (45)  St.  Peter  and  St.  Paul  are  also  fre 
quently  represented,  and  St.  Peter  sometimes  bears  the  Keys, 
in  plain  allusion  to  the  gracious  promise  of  his  Master.1 

1  Matt.  xiv.  19. 


LECT.  VIII.        TRUTH   OP  THE  SCRIPTURE  RECORDS.  221 

The  parabolic  teaching  of  our  Lord  is  sometimes  em 
bodied  by  the  artists,  who  never  tire  of  repeating  the 
type  of  the  "  Good  Shepherd "  —  and  who  occasionally 
represent  the  Sower  going  out  to  sow,  and  the  parable  of 
the  Wise  and  Foolish  Virgins.  In  this  way  indirect  evi 
dence  is  borne  to  the  historic  belief  of  the  early  Church, 
\vhich  does  not  appear  to  have  differed  at  all  from  that  of 
orthodox  Christendom  at  the  present  day. 

If  it  be  still  said — Why  are  we  to  believe  as  they? — 
why  are  we  in  this  enlightened  nineteenth  century  to  re 
ceive  as  facts,  what  Greeks  and  Romans  in  an  uncritical 
and  credulous  age  accepted  without  inquiry,  or  at  least 
without  any  searching  investigation  ?  —  the  answer  is  two 
fold.  Allowing  that  the  bulk  of  men  in  the  first  and  second 
centuries  were  uncritical  and  credulous  with  respect  to 
remote  times,  and  to  such  tales  as  did  not  concern  action 
or  involve  any  alteration  of  conduct,  we  may  remark  that 
it  is  untrue  to  represent  them  as  credulous  where  their 
worldly  interests  were  at  stake,  or  where  any  practical 
result  was  to.  follow  upon  their  belief  of  what  they  heard. 
They  are  not  found  to  have  offered  themselves  a  ready 
prey  to  impostors,  or  to  have  allowed  themselves  to  be  car 
ried  away  by  the  arts  of  pretenders,  where  such  weakness 
would  have  brought  them  into  trouble.  AYe  do  not  find 
that  Simon  Magus  or  Apollonius  of  Tyana  had  many  fol 
lowers.  When  the  slave  Clemens  gave  himself  out  to  be 
Posthumus  Agrippa,  though  the  wishes  of  most  men  must 
have  been  in  favor  of  his  claims,  very  few  appear  to  have 
really  believed  in  them.C46)  The  Romans,  and  still  more 
the  Greeks,  had  plenty  of  shrewdness ;  and  there  was  no 
people  less  likely  than  they  to  accept  on  slight  grounds  a 
religion  involving  such  obligations  as  the  Christian.  It  is 
important  to  bear  in  mind  what  conversion  really  meant  in 

19* 


222  HISTORICAL  EVIDENCES   OF  THE          LECT.  VIII. 

the  early  times.  It  meant  the  severing  of  family  and  social 
ties  —  the  renunciation  of  worldly  prospects  —  abstinence 
from  all  gayeties  and  amusements  —  perpetual  exposure  to 
insults  —  cold  looks,  contemptuous  gestures,  abusive  words, 
injurious  suspicions,  a  perpetual  sense  of  danger,  a  life  to 
lead  which  was  to  "  die  daily." l  "  The  early  Christians,"  it 
has  been  well  said,  "  were  separate  from  other  men.  Their 
religion  snapped  asunder  the  ties  of  a  common  intercourse. 
It  called  them  to  a  new  life ;  it  gave  them  new  sentiments, 
hopes,  and  desires,  a  new  character ;  it  demanded  of  them 
such  a  conscientious  and  steady  performance  of  duty  as 
had  hardly  before  been  conceived  of;  it  subjected  them  to 
privations  and  insults,  to  uncertainty  and  danger;  it  re 
quired  them  to  prepare  for  torments  and  death.  Every 
day  of  their  lives  they  were  strongly  reminded  of  it  by 
the  duties  which  it  enforced  and  the  sacrifices  which  it  cost 
them."(47)  Before  accepting  such  a  position,  we  may  be 
well  assured  that  each  convert  scanned  narrowly  the  evi 
dence  upon  which  he  was  invited  to  make  a  change  in 
every  way  so  momentous.  When  they  first  heard  the  doc 
trine  of  the  resurrection,  the  Athenians  "mocked."2  Yet 
after  a  while  Dionysius  and  others  "  clave  to  Paul  and  be 
lieved"3 —  surely  because  they  found  the  evidence  of  the 
resurrection  of  Christ  such  as  could  not  be  resisted.  It 
must  be  remembered  that  the  prospect  of  his  own  resur 
rection  was  all  that  the  new  convert  had  to  sustain  him. 
"  If  in  this  life  only  we  have  hope,  we  are  of  all  men  most 
miserable,"  says  St.  Paul.4  And  the  prospect  of  his  own 
resurrection  was  bound  up  inseparably  with  the  fact  of 
Christ's  having  risen.  If  Christ  were  not  risen,  preaching 
was  vain,  and  faith  was  vain 5  —  then  all  who  fell  asleep  in 

1  1  Cor.  xv.  31.  2  Acts  xvii.  32.  3  Ibid,  verse  34. 

4  1  Cor.  xv.  19.  5  Ibid,  verse  14. 


LECT.  VIII.        TRUTH   OF   THE   SCRIPTURE   RECORDS.  223 

Christ  perished.1  The  Christian  was  taught  to  base  his 
hope  of  a  happy  future  for  himself  solely  and  entirely  upon 
the  resurrection  and  ascent  to  heaven  of  Jesus.  Surely  the 
evidence  for  these  facts  must  have  been  thousands  of  times 
closely  sifted  by  converts  who  could  fairly  demand  to  have 
the  assurances  on  the  point  of  eye-witnesses. 

Further,  we  must  not  forget  that  the  early  converts  had 
a  second  ground  of  belief,  besides  and  beyond  their  convic 
tion  of  the  honesty  and  trustworthiness  of  those  who  came 
forward  to  preach  the  Gospel,  declaring  themselves  wit 
nesses  of  the  "mighty  works"2  which  Christ  had  wrought, 
and  preeminently  of  his  resurrection.  These  preachers  per 
suaded,  not  merely  by  their  evident  truthfulness  and  sin 
cerity,  but  by  the  miraculous  powers  which  they  wielded. 
There  is  good  evidence  that  the  ability  to  work  miracles 
was  not  confined  to  the  apostolic  age.  The  bishops  and 
others  who  pressed  to  see  Ignatius  on  his  way  to  martyr 
dom,  "  expected  that  he  would  communicate  to  them  some 
spiritual  gift."  (48)  Papias  related  various  miracles  as  having 
happened  in  his  own  lifetime  —  among  others  that  a  dead 
man  had  been  restored  to  life.  (49)  Justin  Martyr  declares 
very  simply  that  in  his  day  both  men  and  women  were 
found  who  possessed  miraculous  powers.  (50)  Quadratus,  the 
Apologist,  is  mentioned  by  a  writer  of  the  second  century 
as  exercising  them.  (51)  IrenaBus  speaks  of  miracles  as  still 
common  in  Gaul  when  he  wrote,  (52)  which  was  nearly  at 
the  close  of  the  second  century.  Tertullian,  Theophilus  of 
Antioch,  and  Minucius  Felix,  authors  of  about  the  same 
period,  are  witnesses  to  the  continuance  to  their  day  of  at 
least  one  class  of  miracles,  t53)  Thus  the  existence  of  these 
powers  was  contemporaneous  with  the  great  spread  of  the 
Gospel;  and  it  accounts  for  that  speedy  conversion  of 

1  1  Cor.  xv.  18.  2  Mark  vi.  2. 


224  HISTORICAL  EVIDENCES   OF  THE         LECT.  VIH. 

thousands  upon  thousands  —  that  rapid  growth  of  the 
Church  in  all  quarters  —  which  would  be  otherwise  so 
astonishing.  The  vast  number  of  the  early  converts  and 
the  possession  of  miraculous  powers  —  which  are  both 
asserted  by  the  primitive  writers  (M>  —  have  the  relation  of 
eifect  to  cause,  and  lend  countenance  to  one  another.  The 
evidence  of  the  Catacombs,  and  the  testimony  of  Pagans, 
confirm  the  truth  of  the  representations  made  in  the  one 
case.  Unless  we  hold  miracles  to  be  impossible,  we  cannot 
reasonably  doubt  them  in  the  other. 

But  the  possession  of  miraculous  powers  by  those  who 
spread  the  Gospel  abroad  in  the  first  ages,  would  alone  and 
by  itself  prove  the  divinity  of  the  Christian  Religion.  God 
would  not  have  given  supernatural  aid  to  persons  engaged 
in  propagating  a  lie,  nor  have  assisted  them  to  palm  a  de 
ceit  upon  the  world  in  His  name.  If  then  there  be  good 
evidence  of  this  fact  —  if  it  be  plain  from  the  ecclesiastical 
writers  that  miracles  were  common  in  the  Christian  Church 
for  above  two  centuries  —  we  have  herein  an  argument  of 
an  historical  character,  which  is  of  no  small  weight  and  im 
portance,  additional  to  that  arising  from  the  mere  confirma 
tion  by  early  uninspired  writers  of  the  Sacred  Narrative. 
We  find  in  their  statements  with  respect  to  these  contem 
porary  facts,  to  which  they  are  unexceptionable  witnesses,  a 
further  evidence  of  the  truth  of  the  Religion  whereof  they 
were  the  ministers  —  a  further  proof  that  Christianity  was 
not  of  man,  but  of  God. 

And  here  let  me  notice  that  in  judging  of  the  value 
which  is  to  be  attached  to  the  testimony  of  the  early  Chris 
tians,  we  should  constantly  bear  in  mind  that  all  in  will, 
and  most  in  fact,  sealed  that  testimony  with  their  blood. 
If  civil  justice  acts  upon  a  sound  principle,  when  it  assigns 
special  weight  to  the  depositions  of  those  who  have  the 


TRUTH   OF  THE   SCRIPTURE   RECORDS.  225 

prospect  of  immediate  death  before  their  eyes,  Christians 
must  be  right  to  value  highly  the  witness  of  the  first  ages. 
The  early  converts  knew  that  they  might  at  any  time  be 
called  upon  to  undergo  death  for  their  religion.  They 
preached  and  taught  with  the  sword,  the  cross,  the  beasts, 
and  the  stake  ever  before  their  eyes.  Most  of  those  in 
eminent  positions  —  and  to  this  class  belong  almost  all  our 
witnesses  —  were  martyred.  Ignatius,  Polycarp,  Papias, 
Quadratus,  Justin,  IrenaBus,  certainly  suffered  death  on  ac 
count  of  their  religion ;  and  every  early  writer  advocating 
Christianity,  by  the  fact  of  his  advocacy,  braved  the  civil 
power,  and  rendered  himself  liable  to  a  similar  fate.  When 
faith  is  a  matter  of  life  and  death,  men  do  not  lightly  take 
up  with  the  first  creed  which  happens  to  hit  their  fancy ; 
nor  do  they  place  themselves  openly  in  the  ranks  of  a  per 
secuted  sect,  unless  they  have  well  weighed  the  claims  of 
the  religion  which  it  professes,  and  convinced  themselves  of 
its  being  the  truth.  It  is  clear  that  the  early  converts  had 
means  of  ascertaining  the  historic  accuracy  of  the  Christian 
narrative  very  much  beyond  ourselves ;  they  could  exam 
ine  and  cross-question  the  witnesses  —  compare  their  sev 
eral  accounts  —  inquire  how  their  statements  were  met  by 
their  adversaries  —  consult  Heathen  documents  of  the  time 

—  thoroughly  and  completely  sift  the  evidence.   To  assume 
that  they  did  not  do  so,  when  the  issue  was  of  such  vast  im 
portance  —  when,  in  accepting  the  religion,  they  set  their 
all  upon  the  cast,  embracing  as  their  certain  portion  in  this 
life,  shame,  contempt,  and  ignominy,  the  severance  of  fam 
ily  ties,  exclusion  from  all  festal  gatherings,  loss  of  friends, 
loss  of  worldly  position,  loss  of  character, —  and  looking 
forward  to  probable  participation  in  the  crudest   sufferings 

—  the  rack,  the  scourge,  the  pincing-irons,  the  cross,  the 
stake,  the  ravening  beasts  of  the  amphitheatre  —  to  assume 


226  HISTORICAL  EVIDENCES  OP  THE        LECT.  VIII. 

this,  is  to  deny  them  that  average  common  sense  and 
instinctive  regard  for  their  own  interests  which  the  mass  of 
mankind  possess  in  all  times  and  countries  —  to  look  upon 
them  as  under  the  influence  of  an  infatuation,  such  as  can 
not  be  shown  to  have  at  any  time  affected  large  bodies 
of  civilized  men.  If  we  grant  to  the  early  converts  an 
average  amount  of  sense  and  intellect,  we  must  accord 
to  their  witness  all  the  weight  that  is  due  to  those,  who, 
having  ample  means  of  investigating  a  matter  in  which 
they  are  deeply  concerned,  have  done  so,  and  determined 
it  in  a  particular  way. 

The  inquiry  in  which  we  have  been  engaged  here  termi 
nates.  We  have  found  that  the  historical  Books  of  the 
New  Testament  are  the  productions  of  contemporaries 
and  eye-witnesses  —  that  two  at  least  of  those  who  wrote 
lives  of  Christ  were  his  close  and  intimate  friends,  while 
the  account  of  the  early  Church  delivered  in  the  Acts  was 
written  by  a  companion  of  the  Apostles  —  that  the  truth 
of  the  narrative  contained  in  these  writings  is  evidenced  by 
their  sober,  simple,  and  unexaggerated  tone,  and  by  their 
agreement,  often  undesigned,  with  each  other  —  that  it  is 
further  confirmed  by  the  incidental  allusions  to  it  which 
are  found  in  the  speeches  of  the  Apostles  and  in  their  epis 
tolary  correspondence  with  their  converts — that  its  main 
facts  are  noticed,  so  far  as  it  was  to  be  expected  that  they 
would  be  noticed,  by  profane  writers,  while  a  comparison 
of  its  secondary  or  incidental  facts  with  the  civil  history  of 
the  times,  as  otherwise  known  to  us,  reveals  an  agreement 
which  is  at  once  so  multitudinous  and  so  minute  as  to  con 
stitute,  in  the  eyes  of  all  those  who  are  capable  of  weighing 
historical  evidence,  an  overwhelming  argument  in  proof  of 
the  authenticity  of  the  whole  story  —  that  the  narrative 
was  accepted  as  simple  truth,  soon  after  it  was  published, 


LECT.  VIII.       TRUTH  OP  THE  SCRIPTURE  RECORDS.  227 

in  most  parts  of  the  civilized  world,  and  not  by  the  vulgar 
only,  but  by  men  of  education  and  refinement,  and  of  good 
worldly  position — that  it  was  received  and  believed,  at  the 
time  when  the  truth  of  every  part  of  it  could  be  readily 
tested,  by  many  hundreds  of  thousands,  notwithstanding 
the  prejudices  of  education,  and  the  sacrifices  which  its 
acceptance  involved  —  and  finally,  that  the  sincerity  of 
these  persons'  belief  was  in  many  cases  tested  in  the  most 
searching  of  all  possible  ways,  by  persecutions  of  the 
crudest  kind,  and  triumphantly  stood  the  test  —  so  that 
the  Church  counted  her  Martyrs  by  thousands.  We  have 
further  seen,  that  there  is  reason  to  believe  that  not  only 
our  Lord  Himself  and  His  Apostles,  but  many  (if  not  most) 
of  the  first  propagators  of  Christianity  had  the  power  of 
working  miracles ;  and  that  this,  and  this  only,  will  account 
for  the  remarkable  facts,  which  none  can  deny,  of  the  rapid 
spread  of  the  Gospel  and  the  vast  numbers  of  the  early 
converts.  All  this  together  —  and  it  must  be  remembered 
that  the  evidence  is  cumulative  —  constitutes  a  body  of 
proof  such  as  is  seldom  producible  with  respect  to  any 
events  belonging  to  remote  times ;  and  establishes  beyond 
all  reasonable  doubt  the  truth  of  the  Christian  Story.  In 
no  single  respect  —  if  we  except  the  fact  that  it  is  miracu 
lous —  has  that  story  a  mythic  character.  It  is  a  single 
story,  told  without  variation,  (55>  whereas  myths  are  fluc 
tuating  and  multiform ;  it  is  blended  inextricably  with  the 
civil  history  of  the  times,  which  it  every  where  represents 
with  extraordinary  accuracy,  whereas  myths  distort  or 
supersede  civil  history ;  it  is  full  of  prosaic  detail,  which 
myths  studiously  eschew;  it  abounds  with  practical  instruc 
tion  of  the  plainest  and  simplest  kind,  whereas  myths  teach 
by  allegory.  Even  in  its  miraculous  element,  it  stands  to 
some  extent  in  contrast  with  all  known  mythologies  — 
where  the  marvellous  has  ever  a  predominant  character  of 


228  TBUTH  OP  TEE  SCRIPTURE  RECORDS.      LECT.  VIII. 

grotesqueness,  which  is  entirely  absent  from  the  New 
Testament  miracles.  (56>  Simple  earnestness,  fidelity,  pains 
taking  accuracy,  pure  love  of  truth,  are  the  most  patent 
characteristics  of  the  New  Testament  writers,  who  evi 
dently  deal  with  facts,  not  with  fancies,  and  are  employed 
in  relating  a  history,  not  in  developing  an  idea.  They 
write  "  that  we  may  know  the  certainty  of  those  things  " l 
which  were  "  most  surely  believed  " 2  in  their  day.  They 
bear  record  of  what  they  have  seen,3  and  assure  us  that 
their  "  testimony  is  true." 4  "  That  which  they  have  heard, 
which  they  have  seen  with  their  eyes,  which  they  have 
looked  upon,  which  their  hands  have  handled  of  the  Word 
of  Life,  that  was  manifested  unto  them  —  that  which  they 
have  seen  and  heard  "  declare  they  unto  us.5  And  such  as 
were  not  eye-witnesses,  deliver  only  "  that  which  they  also 
received."6  I  know  not  how  stronger  words  could  have 

O 

been  used  to  preclude  the  notion  of  that  plastic  growing- 
myth  which  Strauss  conceives  Christianity  to  have  been 
in  Apostolic  times,  and  to  convince  us  of  its  Historic  char 
acter.  And  the  declarations  of  the  Sacred  writers  are  con 
firmed  by  modern  research.  In  spite  of  all  the  efforts  of 
an  "  audacious  criticism" —  as  ignorant  as  bold  —  the  truth 
of  the  Sacred  Narrative  stands  firm,  the  stronger  for  the 
shocks  that  it  has  resisted  ;  "  the  boundless  store  of  truth 
and  life  which  for  eighteen  centuries  has  been  the  aliment 
of  humanity"  is  not  (as  Rationalism  boasts)  "dissipated."  (57> 
God  is  not  "  divested  of  his  grace,  or  man  of  his  dignity  " 
—  nor  is  the  "tie  between  heaven  and  earth  broken." 
The  "  foundation  of  God  "  — the  "  Everlasting  Gospel " 7  — 
still  "  standeth  sure"8  —  and  every  effort  that  is  made  to 
overthrow,  does  but  more  firmly  establish  it. 

1  Luke  i.  4.  2  Ibid,  verse  1.  3  John  xix.  3-5. 

4  Ibid.  xxi.  24.  5  1  John  i.  1-3.  6  1  Cor.  xv.  3. 

7  Rev.  xiv.  6.  8  2  Tim.  ii.  19. 


ISTO  T  E  S 


20 


NOTES. 


LECTURE    I. 

NOTE  L,  p.  26. 

HERODOTUS,  whose  easy  faith  would  naturally  lead  him  to  accept 
the  Greek  myths  without  difficulty,  still  makes  a  marked  distinction 
between  Mythology  and  History  Proper.  See  b.  iii.  ch.  122,  where 
the  dominion  of  the  sea  of  Polycrates  is  spoken  of  as  something  dif 
ferent  in  kind  from  that  of  the  mythical  Minos ;  and  compare  a  some 
what  similar  distinction  between  the  mythic  and  the  historical  in 
b.  i.  ch.  5,  and  again  in  b.  ii.  ch.  44,  ad  fin.  A  difference  of  the 
same  kind  seems  to  have  been  made  by  the  Egyptian  and  Babylonian 
writers.  See  Lecture  IE.,  page  64. 

NOTE  II.,  p.  26. 

This  distinction  was,  I  believe,  first  taken  by  George  in  his  work 
Mythus  und  Sage;  Versuch  einer  wissenschaftlichen  Entwicklung  dieser 
Eegriffe  und  ihres  Verhttltnisses  zum  christlichen  Glauben.  It  is  adopted 
by  Strauss,  (Leben  Jesu,  Einleitung,  §  10  ;  vol.  i.  pp.  41-3,  Chapman's 
Translation,)  who  thus  distinguishes  the  two :  "  Mythus  is  the  crea 
tion  of  a  fact  out  of  an  idea ;  legend  the  seeing  of  an  idea  in  a  fact, 
or  arising  out  of  it."  The  myth  is  therefore  pure  and  absolute  imagi 
nation  ;  the  legend  has  a  basis  of  fact,  but  amplifies,  abridges,  or  modi 
fies  that  basis  at  its  pleasure.  De  Wette  thus  expresses  the  difference : 
"The  myth  is  an  idea  in  a  vestment  of  facts ;  the  legend  contains  facts 
pervaded  and  transformed  by  ideas."  (Einleitung  in  das  alt.  Test. 
§  136,  d.)  Compare  Professor  Powell's  Third  Series  of  Essays,  Essay 
iii.  p.  340.  "  A  myth  is  a  doctrine  expressed  in  a  narrative  form  ;  an 
abstract  moral  or  spiritual  truth  dramatized  in  action  and  personifica 
tion,  where  the  object  is  to  enforce  faith,  not  in  the  parable,  but  in 
the  moral." 

(231) 


232 


NOTES.  LECT.  I. 


NOTE  in.,  p.  26. 


"The  mission  of  the  ancient  prophets,"  says  Gibbon,  "of  Moses 
and  of  Jesus,  had  been  confirmed  by  many  splendid  prodigies  ;  and 
Mahomet  was  repeatedly  urged  by  the  inhabitants  of  Mecca  and 
Medina  to  produce  a  similar  evidence  of  his  divine  legation ;  to  call 
down  from  heaven  the  angel  or  the  volume  of  his  revelation,  to 
create  a  garden  in  the  desert,  or  to  kindle  a  conflagration  in  the 
unbelieving  city.  As  often  as  he  is  pressed  by  the  demands  of  the 
Koreish,  he  involves  himself  in  the  obscure  boast  of  vision  and  proph 
ecy,  appeals  to  the  internal  proofs  of  his  doctrine,  and  shields  him 
self  behind  the  Providence  of  God,  who  refuses  those  signs  and 
wonders  that  would  depreciate  the  merit  of  faith,  and  aggravate 
the  guilt  of  infidelity.  But  the  modest  or  angry  tone  of  his  apologies 
betrays  his  weakness  and  vexation;  and  these  passages  of  scandal  es 
tablish  beyond  suspicion  the  integrity  of  the  Koran.  The  votaries 
of  Mahomet  are  more  assured  than  himself  of  his  miraculous  gifts, 
and  their  confidence  and  credulity  increase  as  they  are  further  removed 
from  the  time  and  place  of  his  spiritual  exploits."  Decline  and  Fall, 
vol.  v.  ch.  1.  p.  210.  Compare  with  this  acknowledgment  on  the  part 
of  an  enemy  of  Christianity,  the  similar  statements  of  its  defenders. 
(Butler,  Analogy,  Part  II.  ch.  vii. ;  Paley,  Evidences,  Part  IE.  ch.  ix. 
§  3  ;  White,  Bampton  Lectures,  Sermon  vi.  p.  254 ;  Forster,  Ma  home  - 
tanism  Unveiled,  vol.  i.  p.  32  ;  and  Dr.  Macbride,  Mohammedan  Religion 
Explained,  pp.  28-9.)  Ockley,  a  very  unprejudiced  writer,  observes, 
that  "  when  the  impostor  was  called  upon,  as  he  often  was,  to  work 
miracles  in  proof  of  his  divine  mission,  he  excused  himself  by  various 
pretences,  and  appealed  to  the  Koran  as  a  standing  miracle."  {Life 
of  Mohammed,  pp.  65-6,  Bonn's  Ed.)  He  also  remarks,  that  there  was 
no  proof  of  his  visions  or  intercourse  with  angels  beyond  his  own 
assertions  ;  and  that,  on  the  occasion  of  the  pretended  night-journey 
to  heaven,  Ayesha  testified  that  he  did  not  leave  his  bed.  (Ibid.  p. 
20,  note.) 

NOTE  IV.,  p.  26. 

See  Butler's  Analogy,  Part  II.  ch.  vii. ;  Paley's  Evidences,  Part  HE. 
ch.  viii. ;  and  Rev.  R.  MichelTs  Bampton  Lectures,  Lecture  iv.  pp. 
124-129.  Dr.  Stanley  tersely  expresses  the  contrast  between  the 


LECT.  I.  NOTES.  233 

Christian  and  other  religions  in  this  respect,  when  he  says  of  Chris 
tianity,  that  it  "  alone,  of  all  religions,  claims  to  be  founded  not  on 
fancy  or  feeling,  but  on  Fact  and  Truth."  (Sinai  and  Palestine,  ch. 
ii.  p.  155.) 

NOTE  V.,  p.  27. 
Butler's  Analogy,  Part  n.  ch.  vii.  p.  311. 

NOTE  VI.,  p.  28. 

See  Sir  G.  C.  Lewis's  Inquiry  into  the  Credibility  of  the  Early  Roman 
History,  vol.  i.  Introduction,  p.  2. 

NOTE  VII.,  p.  28. 

M.  de  Pouilly's  Dissertation  sur  Fincertitude  et  Fhistoire  des  quatre 
premiers  si&cles  de  Rome,  which  was  published  in  the  ninth  volume 
of  the  Mdmoires  de  V  Acadimie  des  Inscriptions,  constitutes  an  era  in 
the  study  of  ancient  history.  Earlier  scholars  had  doubted  this  or 
that  narrative  of  an  ancient  author ;  but  M.  de  Pouilly  seems  to  have 
been  the  first  to  "lay  down  with  clearness  and  accuracy  the  princi 
ples"  by  which  the  historic  value  of  an  author's  accounts  of  early 
times  is  to  be  tested.  His  "Dissertation"  was  read  in  December, 
1722 ;  and  a  second  Memoir  on  the  same  subject  was  furnished  by 
him  to  the  Mdmoires  soon  afterwards,  and  forms  a  part  of  the  same 
volume.  (See  Sir  G.  C.  Lewis's  Inquiry,  vol.  i.  ch.  i.  p.  5,  note  11.) 

M.  de  Beaufort,  who  has  generally  been  regarded  as  the  founder 
of  the  modern  Historical  Criticism,  did  not  publish  his  "  Dissertation 
sur  T  incertitude  des  cinq  premiers  sibcles  de  Fhistoire  Romaine  "  till  six 
teen  years  after  Pouilly,  as  this  work  first  appeared  at  Utrecht  in 
1738.  His  merits  are  recognized  to  some  extent  by  Niebuhr,  (Hist, 
of  Rome,  vol.  i.  pref.  of  1826,  p.  vii.  E.  T. ;  and  Lectures  on  Roman 
History,  vol.  i.  p.  148,  E.  T.) 

NOTE  VHL,  p.  28. 

Niebuhr's  views  are  most  fully  developed  in  his  "Roman  History," 
(first  published  in  1811-1812,  and  afterwards  reprinted  with  large 
additions  and  alterations  in  1827-1832,)  and  in  hia  lectures  on,  the< 

20* 


234  NOTES.  LECT.  I. 

History  of  Rome,  delivered  at  Bonn,  and  published  in  1846.  They 
also  appear  in  many  of  his  Kleine  Schriften,  and  in  his  Lectures  on 
Ancient  History,  delivered  at  Bonn  in  1826,  and  again  in  1829-1830, 
which  were  published  after  his  decease  by  his  son.  Most  of  these 
works  have  received  an  English  dress,  and  are  well  known  to  stu 
dents. 

'  NOTE  IX.,  p.  28. 

So  early  as  1817,  Karl  Otfried  Mailer,  in  a  little  tract,  called  &g{- 
netica,  gave  promise  of  excellence  as  an  historical  critic.  His  Orcho- 
menus  iind  die  Minyer  soon  followed,  and  established  his  reputation.  He 
is  perhaps  best  known  in  England  by  his  Dorians,  (published  in  1824, 
and  translated  into  English  by  Mr.  H.  Tufnell  and  Sir  G.  C.  Lewis 
in  1830,)  a  work  of  great  value,  but  not  free  from  minor  blemishes. 
(See  Mr.  Grote's  History  of  Greece,  vol.  ii.  p.  530,  &c.) 


NOTE  X.,  p.  28. 

Bockh  is  best  known  in  England  by  his  book  on  the  Public  Econ 
omy  of  Athens,  (Staatshaushaltung  der  Athener,}  published  in  Berlin 
in  the  year  1817,  and  translated  into  English  in  1828,  (London,  Mur 
ray.)  But  his  great  work  is  the  Corpus  Inscriptionum  Gracarum,  inv 
four  large  folio  volumes,  published  at  Berlin  between  1825  and  1832. 
In  this  he  shows  himself  an  historical  critic  of  the  first  order. 

TV- 
NOTE  XI.,  p.  28. 

I  refer  especially  to  Bishop  Thirlwall,  Mr.  Grote,  Colonel  Mure, 
Mr.  Merivale,  and  Sir  G.  C.  Lewis.  The  name  of  Dr.  Arnold  should 
also  be  mentioned  as  that  of  one  to  whom  historical  criticism  in  Eng 
land  owes  much. 

•     *     *f  ' 

NOTE  XH.  p.  29. 

See  Colonel  Mure's  Remarks  on  Two  Appendices  to  Mr,  Grote's  History 
of  Greece,  (London,  Longman,  1851  ;)  and  an  excellent  article  in  the 
Edinburgh  Review  for  July,  1856,  (No.  211,  Art.  I.,)  in  which  the 
extreme  conclusions  of  Sir  G.  C.  Lewis  on  the  subject  of  early  Roman 
History  are  ably  combated. 


LECT.  I.  NOTES.  235 


NOTE  XIH.,  p.  30. 

The  subjoined  extract  from  the  correspondence  of  Niebuhr  has 
been  already  given  in  the  work  of  my  immediate  predecessor  in  the 
office  of  Bampton  Lecturer,  (see  the  notes  to  Mr.  Hansel's  Lectures, 
pp.  321-2 ;)  but  its  importance  is  so  great,  that  I  cannot  forbear  to 
cite  it  here.  "In  my  opinion,"  wrote  Niebuhr  in  the  year  1818, 
"he  is  not  a  Protestant  Christian  who  does  not  receive  the  histor 
ical  facts  of  Christ's  early  life,  in  their  literal  acceptation,  with  all 
their  miracles,  as  equally  authentic  with  any  event  recorded  in  his 
tory,  and  whose  belief  in  them  is  not  as  firm  and  tranquil  as  his 
belief  in  the  latter ;  who  has  not  the  most  absolute  faith  in  the  arti 
cles  of  the  Apostles'  Creed,  taken  in  their  grammatical  sense  ;  who 
does  not  consider  every  doctrine  and  every  precept  of  the  New  Tes 
tament  as  undoubted  divine  revelation,  in  the  sense  of  the  Christians 
of  the  first  century,  who  knew  nothing  of  a  Theopneustia.  More 
over,  a  Christianity  after  the  fashion  of  the  modern  philosophers  and 
pantheists,  without  a  personal  God,  without  immortality,  without 
human  individuality,  without  historical  faith,  is  no  Christianity  at 
all  to  me;  though  it  may  be  a  very  intellectual,  very  ingenious  phi 
losophy.  I  have  often  said  that  I  do  not  know  what  to  do  with  a 
metaphysical  God,  and  that  I  will  have  none  but  the  God  of  the 
Bible,  who  is  heart  to  heart  with  us."  l  The  general  orthodoxy  of 
Niebuhr  with  respect  to  the  Old  Testament  History  is  plain  from 
his  Lectures  on  Ancient  History,  (vol.  i.  p.  20,  37,  128,  132,  &c. ;) 
though,  as  will  be  noticed  hereafter,  he  is  not  always  quite  consist 
ent  on  the  point.  See  below,  Notes  XXXIV.  and  XXXVI. 

NOTE  XIV.,  p.  31. 

Eichhorn,  in  his  examination  of  the  WolfenbOttel  Fragments,  (Re 
cension  der  Ubrigen,  noch  ungedruckten  Werke  des  Wolfenbilttlischen  Frag- 
mentisten,  in  Eichhorn's  Attgemeiner  Bibliothek  for  1787,  vol.  i.  parts  i. 
and  ii.,)  was,  I  believe,  the  first  to  draw  this  comparison.  "Divine 
interpositions,"  he  argued,  "must  be  alike  admitted,  or  alike  denied, 
in  the  primitive  histories  of  all  people.  It  was  the  practice  of  all 

1  Life  and  Letters  of  B.  G.  JViebuhr,  vol.  ii.  p.  123.  Compare  Letter  ccxxxi.  vol.  ii. 
pp.  103-5,  and  Letter  cccxxix.  vol.  ii.  p.  315. 


236  NOTES.  LECT.  I. 

nations,  of  the  Grecians  as  well  as  the  Orientals,  to  refer  every  unex 
pected  or  inexplicable  occurrence  immediately  to  the  Deity.  The  sages 
of  antiquity  lived  in  continual  communion  with  superior  intelligences. 
Whilst  these  representations  were  commonly  understood,  in  reference 
to  the  Hebrew  legends,  verbally  and  literally,  it  had  been  customary  to 
explain  similar  representations  in  the  Pagan  histories  by  presupposing 
either  deception  and  gross  falsehood,  or  the  misinterpretation  and  cor 
ruption  of  tradition.  But  justice  evidently  required  that  Hebrew  and 
Pagan  history  should  be  treated  in  the  same  way."  See  the  summary 
of  Eichhorn's  views  and  reasonings  in  Strauss's  Leben  Jesu,  §  6,  (vol. 
i.  pp.  15-18,  E.  T.)  The  views  thus  broached  were  further  carried 
out  by  Gabler,  Schelling,  and  Bauer.  The  last-named  author  re 
marked,  that  "the  earliest  records  of  all  nations  were  mythical  :  why 
should  the  writings  of  the  Hebrews  form  a  solitary  exception?  — 
whereas  in  point  of  fact  a  cursory  glance  at  their  sacred  books  proved 
that  they  also  contain  mythical  elements."  See  his  Hebraische  Mytho- 
logie  des  aUen  und  neuen  Testaments ,  published  in  1820. 

NOTE  XV.,  p.  31. 

See  the  works  above  cited,  and  compare  an  article  in  Bertholdt's 
Kritische  Journal,  vol.  v.  §  235.  See  also  Theodore  Parker's  De  Wette, 
vol.  ii.  p.  198. 

NOTE  XVI.,  p.  31. 

So  Vatke  (Religion  des  AUen  Testamentes,  §  23,  p.  289  et  seqq.)  and 
De  Wette,  Archaologie,  §  30-34.  Baron  Bunsen  takes  the  same  view. 
See  below,  Notes  XXXIX.  and  XLIV. 

NOTE  XVH.,  p.  31. 

Vatke  (1.  s.  c.)  regards  the  "significant  names"  of  Saul,  David, 
and  Solomon,  as  proof  of  the  legendary  character  which  attaches  to 
the  Books  of  Samuel.  Von  Bohlen  argues  similarly  with  respect  to 
the  ancestors  of  Abraham.  (Alte  Indien,  p.  155.) 

NOTE  XVHI.,  p.  31. 

Semler,  towards  the  close  of  the  last  century,  pronounced  the  his 
tories  of  Samson  and  Esther  to  be  myths;  Eichhorn,  early  in  the 


LECT.  I.  NOTES.  237 

present,  assigned  the  same  character  to  the  Mosaic  accounts  of  the 
Creation  and  the  Fall.  (See  Strauss's  Introduction ;  Leben  Jesu,  vol. 
i.  pp.  21  and  24,  E.  T.) 

NOTE  XIX.  p.  32. 

"  Tradition,"  says  De  Wette,  "  is  uncritical  and  partial;  its  tendency 
is  not  historical,  but  rather  patriotic  and  poetical.  And  since  the  patri 
otic  sentiment  is  gratified  by  all  that  flatters  national  pride,  the  more 
splendid,  the  more  honorable,  the  more  wonderful  the  narrative,  the 
more  acceptable  it  is  ;  and  where  tradition  has  left  any  blanks,  imagina 
tion  at  once  steps  in  and  fills  them  up.  And  since,"  he  continues,  "a 
great  part  of  the  historical  books  of  the  Old  Testament  bears  this 
stamp,  it  has  hitherto  been  believed  possible,"  &c.  (Kritik  der  Israel- 
itischen  Geschichte,  Einleitung,  §  10.)  Compare  Vater's  Abhandlung 
ilber  Moses  und  die  Verfdsser  des  Pentateuch*  in  the  third  volume  of  his 
Comment.  Uber  den  Pentateuch,  §  660. 

NOTE  XX.,  p.  32. 

This  was  the  aim  of  the  School,  called  technically  Rationalists,  in 
Germany,  of  which  Eichhorn  and  Paulus  were  the  chief  leaders.  See 
Eichhorn's  Einleitung  in  das  Alte  Testament,  and  Paulus's  Commentar 
ilber  das  neue  Testament,  and  also  his  Leben  Jesu,  in  which  his  views  are 
more  fully  developed.  More  recently  Ewald,  in  his  Geschichte  Volkes 
Israels,  has  composed  on  the  same  principle  a  complete  history  of  the 
Jewish  people. 

NOTE  XXI.,  p.  32. 

See  Strauss,  Leben  Jesu,  §  8,  vol.  i.  p.  29,  E.  T.  This  same  view  was 
taken  by  De  Wette,  Krug,  Gabler,  Horst,  and  others. 

NOTE  XXH.,  p.  32. 

An  anonymous  writer  in  Bertholdt's  Journal  (vol.  v.  §  235)  objects 
to  the  rationalistic  method  of  Paulus,  that  it  "  evaporates  all  sacred- 
ness  and  divinity  from  the  Scriptures  ; "  while  the  mythical  view,  of 
which  he  is  an  advocate,  "  leaves  the  substance  of  the  narrative  unas- 
sailed,"  and  "  accepts  the  whole,  not  indeed  as  trtie  history,  but  as  a 
sacred  legend."  Strauss  evidently  approves  of  this  reasoning.  (Leben 
Jesu,  §  8,  vol.  i.  p.  32,  E.  T.) 


238  NOTES.  LECT.  I. 

NOTE  XXm.,  p.  32. 

Strauss,  Leben  Jesu,  Einleitung,  §  4.  The  weakness  of  this  argument 
from  authority  is  indeed  allowed  by  Strauss  himself,  who  admits  that 
Origen  "  does  not  speak  out  freely,"  (p.  9,)  and  that  "his rule  was  to 
retain  the  literal  together  with  the  allegorical  sense,"  (p.  6)  —  a  rule 
which  he  only  broke  in  "a  few  instances,"  (p.  12.)  He  also  allows 
that  "  after  Origen,  that  kind  of  allegory  only  which  left  the  historical 
sense  unimpaired  was  retained  in  the  Church;  and  where,  subse 
quently,  a  giving  up  of  the  verbal  meaning  is  spoken  of,  this  refers 
merely  to  a  trope  or  simile,"  (p.  9,  note  14.)  It  is  doubtful  whether 
Origen  himself  ever  really  gave  up  the  literal  and  historical  sense. 
That  the  heretics  who  sheltered  themselves  under  his  name  (Origenists) 
did  so  is  certain ;  but  they  are  accused  of  interpolating  his  writings. 
(See  Mosheim's  Ecclesiastical  History,  b.  i.  ch.  iii.,  note*  ad  fin.  vol.  i. 
p.  288,  E.  T.) 

Since  the  above  was  in  type,  I  have  observed  that  Professor  Powell, 
relying  (as  it  would  seem)  on  the  bold  assertions  of  the  infidel  Wool- 
ston,1  taxes  not  Origen  only,  but  the  Fathers  generally,  with  an  aban 
donment  of  the  historical  sense  of  Scripture.  "  The  idea,"  he  says, 
"  of  the  mythic  origin  of  the  Gospel  narrative  had  confessedly  been 
applied  by  some  writers,  as  Rosenmttller  and  Anton,  to  certain  portions 
of  the  Gospels ;  and  so  limited,  was  acknowledged  to  possess  the  sanction 
of  the  Fathers."  (Third  Series  of  Essays,  Essay  iii.  p.  338.)  But  the 
opposite  view  of  Strauss  is  far  more  consonant  with  the  facts.  The 
whole  subject  was  elaborately,  and,  I  believe,  honestly  discussed  in  one 
of  the  celebrated  Tracts  for  the  Times,  (Tract  89,  §  3;  vol.  vi.  pp. 
38-70  ;)  and  the  Fathers  generally  were  completely  exonerated  from  the 
false  charge  so  commonly  preferred  against  them. 

NOTE  XXIV.,  p.  32. 

The  more  recent  writers  of  the  mythical  School,  as  De  "Wette, 
Strauss,  and  Theodore  Parker,  assume  that  the  mythological  char 
acter  of  great  part  of  the  Old  Testament  history  is  fully  established. 
(See  De  "VVette's  Einleitung  in  das  Alt.  Test.  §  136 ;  Strauss,  Leben 
Jesu,  Einleitung,  §  9,  et  seqq. ;  Theodore  Parker's  Enlarged  Transla- 

1  Six  Discourses  on  the  Miracles  of  our  Saviour,  published  in  1727,  1728,  and  1729. 


LECT.  I.  NOTES.  239 

tion  of  De  Wette,  vol.  ii.,  pp.  23-7,  et  passim.)  German  orthodox 
writers  bear  striking  witness  to  the  effect  which  the  repeated  attacks  on 
the  historical  character  of  the  Old  Testament  narrative  have  had  upon 
the  popular  belief  in  their  country.  "  If,"  says  Keil,  "  the  scientific 
theology  of  the  Evangelical  Church  is  anxious  to  strengthen  its  foun 
dations  again,  it  must  force  rationalism  away  from  the  Old  Testament, 
where  till  the  present  time  it  has  planted  its  foot  so  firmly,  that  many 
an  acute  theologian  has  doubted  whether  it  is  possible  to  rescue  again 
the  fides  humana  et  divina  of  the  historical  writings  of  the  ancient 
covenant."  (Commentar  ilber  das  Buck  Josua,  Vorwort,  p.  ii.  "  Will 
daher  die  wissenschaftliche  Theologie  der  evangelischen  Kirche  sich 
wieder  fest  grUnden,  so  muss  sie  den  Rationalismus  aus  dem  Alten 
Testamente  verdrangen,  in  welchem  derselbe  bis  jetzt  so  festen  Fuss 
gefasst  hat,  dass  nicht  wenige  tttchtige  Theologen  daran  verzweifeln, 
die  fides  humana  et  divina  der  historischen  Schriften  des  altes  Bundes 
noch  retten  zu  konnen.")  And  he  complains  that  the  Rationalistic 
"  mode  of  treating  the  Old  Testament  History  has  been  very  disadvan 
tageous  to  the  believing  theological  science,  inasmuch  as  it  can  now  find 
no  objective  ground  or  stand-point  free  from  uncertainty  ;  "  (dass  sie  keinen 
objectiv  sichern  Grund  und  Standpunkt  gewinnen  kann.  Ibid.  1.  c.) 

NOTE  XXV.,  p.  32. 

Strauss  evidently  feels  this  difficulty,  (Leben  Jesu,  Einleitung,  §  13 ; 
vol.  i.  p.  64,  E.  T.)  He  endeavors  to  meet  it  by  suggesting  that  "  the 
sun  does  not  shine  on  all  parts  of  the  earth  at  once.  There  was  en 
lightenment  in  Italy  and  Greece  about  the  time  of  the  establishment  of 
Christianity,  but  none  in  the  remote  Judaea,  where  the  real  nature  of 
history  had  never  even  been  rightly  apprehended."  In  this  there  is,  no 
doubt,  some  truth;  but  Strauss  forgets  that,  though  Judaea  was  the 
scene  of  the  Gospel  story,  the  Evangelical  writings  were  composed 
chiefly  in  Greece  and  Italy ;  and  he  omits  to  notice,  that  being  written 
in  Greek  —  the  literary  language  of  the  time  —  they  addressed  them 
selves  to  the  enlightened  circles  of  Athens,  Corinth,  Ephesus,  and 
Rome  itself,  far  more  than  to  the  rude  provincials  of  Palestine.  The 
miracles,  too,  by  which  Christianity  was  spread,  were  not  alone  those 
which  occurred  in  Judaea ;  many  had  been  wrought  in  Rome  and  in 
the  various  cities  of  Greece  ;  where  they  challenged  the  attention  of  the 
most  civilized  and  enlightened  classes.  In  Judaea  itself,  if  the  Jews 


240  NOTES.  LECT.  I. 

generally  were  not  "  enlightened,"  in  the  modern  sense  of  the  word, 
the  Roman  Governors,  and  their  courts,  were.  And  among  the  Jews, 
it  must  be  remembered,  the  sect  which  had  most  power  was  that  of  the 
Sadducees  —  sceptics  and  materialists. 

NOTE  XXVI.,  p.  32. 

The  subjoined  passage  from  Strauss  seems  to  show  something  of 
this  feeling  :  "  The  results  of  the  inquiry  which  we  have  now  brought 
to  a  close,  have  apparently  annihilated  the  greatest  and  most  valuable 
part  of  that  which  the  Christian  has  been  wont  to  believe  concerning 
his  Saviour  Jesus,  have  uprooted  all  the  animating  motives  which  he 
has  gathered  from  his  faith,  and  withered  all  his  consolations.  The 
boundless  store  of  truth  and  life  which  for  eighteen  centuries  has  been 
the  aliment  of  humanity,  seems  irretrievably  dissipated ;  the  most  sub 
lime  levelled  with  the  dust,  God  divested  of  his  grace,  man  of  his  dig 
nity,  and  the  tie  between  Heaven  and  Earth  broken.  Piety  turns  away 
with  horror  from  so  fearful  an  act  of  desecration,  and,  strong  in  the  im 
pregnable  self-evidence  of  its  faith,  pronounces  that,  let  an  audacious 
criticism  attempt  what  it  will,  all  which  the  Scriptures  declare  and  the 
Church  believes  of  Christ,  will  still  subsist  as  eternal  truth,  nor  needs 
one  iota  of  it  to  be  renounced."  (Leben  Jesu,  §  144,  vol.  iii.  p.  396, 
E.  T.) 

NOTE  XXVH.,  p.  33. 

See  Bauer's  Hebraische  Mythologie  des  alien  und  neuen  Testaments, 
Erste  Theil,  Einleitung,  §  3,  with  Gabler's  criticism  of  it  in  his  Journal 
fur  auserlesene  theolog.  Literatur,  ii.  1,  §  58.  Compare  Strauss,  Leben 
Jesu,  $§  33-43. 

NOTE  XXVHL,  p.  33. 

Eichhorn,  Einleitung  in  das  neue  Testament,  §  422 ;  Theile,  Zur  Bio 
graphic  Jesu,  §  23. 

NOTE  XXIX.,  p.  33. 

See  the  account  which  Strauss  gives  of  the  "  Development  of  the 
Mythical  point  of  view,"  in  his  Leben  Jesu,  §§  9-11.  "The  mythus," 
he  observes,  "when  once  admitted  into  the  New  Testament,  was  long 
detained  at  the  threshold,  namely,  the  history  of  the  infancy  of  Jesus, 
every  farther  advance  being  contested.  Ammon,  the  anonymous  E.  F. 


LECT.  I.  NOTES.  241 

in  Henke's  Magazine,  and  others,  maintained  a  marked  distinction  be 
tween  the  historical  worth  of  the  narratives  of  the  public  life  and  those 
of  the  infancy  of  Jesus.  .  .  .  Soon,  however,  some  of  the  theologians 
who  had  conceded  the  commencement  of  the  history  to  the  province 
of  mythus,  perceived  that  the  conclusion,  the  history  of  the  ascen 
sion,  must  likewise  be  regarded  as  mythical.  Thus  the  two  extrem 
ities  were  cut  off  by  the  prumng-knife  of  criticism,"  (§  11,  pp.  44-5.) 
Finally  the  essential  body  of  the  history  was  assailed,  and  the  Gos 
pels —  especially  the  first  three — were  "found  to  contain  a  contin 
ually  increasing  number  of  mythi  and  mythical  embellishments." 
(§  9,  p.  86.) 

NOTE  XXX.,  p.  33. 
LebenJesu,  §  151 ;  vol.  iii.  p.  437,  E.  T. 


NOTE  XXXI.,  p.  34. 

Ibid.  pp.  437-8. 

NOTE  XXXH.,  p.  34. 

Eth.  Nic.  vi.  7,  §  4  :  "  For  it  is  absurd  that  any  one  should  regard 
the  science  of  politics,  or  prudence,  as  the  most  important,  unless  man 
is  the  noblest  being  in  the  universe." 


NOTE  XXXm.,  p.  34. 
See  above,  Note  Xm. 

NOTE  XXXrV.,  p.  35. 

Vortrttge  itber  alte  Geschichte,  vol.  i.  pp.  158-9.  "  Dass  das  Buch 
Esther  nicht  als  ein  historisches  zu  betrachten  sei,  davon  bin  ich  tlber- 
zeugt,  und  ich  stehe  nicht  im  Mindesten  an  dies  hiermit  offentlich 
auszusprechen ;  Viele  sind  derselben  Meinung.  Schon  die  Kirchen- 
vater  haben  sie  daran  geplagt,  und  der  heilige  Hieronymus,  wie  er  klar 
andeutet,  in  der  grb'ssten  Verlegenheit  befunden,  wenn  er  es  als  his- 
torisch  betrachten  wollte.  Gegenwartig  wird  Niemand  die  Geschichte 
in  Buche  Judith  fur  historisch  ansehen,  und  weder  Origenes  noch 
Hieronymus  haben  dies  gethan ;  eben  so  verhalt  es  sich  mit  dem  Buche 
Esther ;  cs  ist  ein  Gedicht  liber  diese  verhdltnisse" 

21 


242  NOTES.  LECT.  L 


NOTE  XXXV.,  p.  35. 

On  the  weight  of  the  external  testimonies  to  the  authenticity  of  the 
Book  of  Esther,  see  Lecture  V.,  Note  LXIX. 

NOTE  XXXVI.,  p.  36. 

There  is  reason  to  suspect  that  Niebuhr  would  have  surrendered  the 
Book  of  Daniel,  as  well  as  the  Book  of  Esther,  to  the  assailants  of 
Scripture,  since  he  nowhere  refers  to  it  as  an  historical  document  in  his 
Lectures.  Such  reference  would  have  been  natural  in  several  places. 

NOTE  XXXVII.,  p.  37. 

See  M.  Bunsen's  Philosophy  of  Universal  History,  vol.  i.,  pp.  190- 
191,  E.  T. 

NOTE  XXXVm.,  p.  37. 
See  the  same  author's  Egypt,  vol.  i.,  p.  182,  E.  T. 

NOTE  XXXIX.,  p.  37. 
Ibid.  p.  173. 

NOTE  XL.,  p.  37. 
Ibid.  p.  174. 

NOTE  XLL,  p.  37. 
Ibid.  p.  173. 

NOTE  XLIL,  p.  37. 
Ibid.  p.  181. 

NOTE  XLIH.,  p.  37. 
Ibid.  p.  180. 

NOTE  XLIV.    p.  38. 
Ibid.  p.  179  ;  and  compare  p.  170. 

NOTE  XLV.,  p.  38. 

German  scepticism  commenced  with  the  school  called  the  Naturalists, 
who  undertook  to  resolve  all  the  Scripture  miracles  into  natural  occur 
rences.  The  mythical  School,  which  soon  followed,  very  effectually 


LECT.  I.  NOTES.  243 

demolished  the  natural  theory,  and  clearly  demonstrated  its  "  unnat- 
uralness."  (See  Strauss,  Leben  Jesu,  Einleitung,  §  9  and  §  12.)  The 
mythical  writers  themselves  oppose  one  another.  Strauss  frequently 
condetnns  the  explanations  of  Gabler  and  Weisse  ;  and  Theodore 
Parker  often  argues  against  De  Wette.  That  the  Scripture  History  is 
a  collection  of  myths,  all  of  them  are  agreed  ;  when  and  how  the  myths 
grew  up,  at  what  time  they  took  a  written  form,  when  they  came  into 
their  present  shape,  what  amount  of  fact  they  have  as  their  basis,  on 
these  and  all  similar  points,  it  is  difficult  to  find  two  of  them  who  hold 
the  same  opinion.  (See  below,  Lecture  IE.,  Note  XXXVII.) 

NOTE  XLVL,  p.  39. 

"  Historical  evidence,"  says  Sir  G.  C.  Lewis,  "  like  judicial  evidence, 
is  founded  on  the  testimony  of  credible  witnesses.  Unless  these  wit 
nesses  had  personal  and  immediate  perception  of  the  facts  which  they 
report,  unless  they  saw  and  heard  what  they  undertake  to  relate  as 
having  happened,  their  evidence  is  not  entitled  to  credit.  As  all  ori 
ginal  witnesses  must  be  contemporary  with  the  events  which  they  attest, 
it  is  a  necessary  condition  for  the  credibility  of  a  witness  that  he  be  a 
contemporary ;  though  a  contemporary  is  not  necessarily  a  credible 
witness.  Unless  therefore  an  historical  account  can  be  traced,  by  prob 
able  proof,  to  the  testimony  of  contemporaries,  the  first  condition  of 
historical  credibility  fails."  (Credibility  of  Early  Roman  History,  Intro 
duction,  vol.  i.  p.  16.)  Allowing  for  a  little  rhetorical  overstating 
of  the  case,  this  is  a  just  estimate  of  the  primary  value  of  the  testimony 
borne  by  contemporaries  and  eye-witnesses. 

NOTE  XLVH.,  p.  39. 

It  is  evident  that  an  historian  can  rarely  have  witnessed  one  half  the 
events  which  he  puts  on  record.  Even  writers  of  commentaries,  like 
Caesar  and  Xenophon,  record  many  facts  which  they  had  not  seen,  and 
which  they  knew  only  by  information  from  others.  Ordinary  histo 
rians,  who  have  not  had  the  advantage  of  playing  the  chief  part  in  the 
events  which  they  relate,  are  still  more  indebted  to  inquiry.  Hence 
History  seems  to  have  received  its  name,  (fWopia.)  When  the  inquiry 
appears  to  have  been  carefully  conducted,  and  the  judgment  of  the 
writer  seems  sound,  we  give  very  nearly  as  full  credence  to  his  state- 


244  NOTES.  LECT.  I. 

merits  founded  upon  inquiry,  as  to  those  of  an  eye-witness.  We  trust 
Thucydides  almost  as  implicitly  as  Xenophon,  and  Tacitus  almost  as 
entirely  as  Caesar.  Sir  G.  C.  Lewis  allows  that  accounts  .  .  .  derived, 
directly  or  indirectly,  from  the  reports  of  original  witnesses  .  .  • .  may 
be  considered  as  presumptively  entitled  to  credit."  (Credibility,  &c., 
ch.  ii.  §  1 ;  vol.  i.  p.  19.  Compare  p.  25,  and  pp.  81-2  ;  and  see  also 
his  Methods  of  Observation  and  Reasoning  in  Politics,  ch.  vii.  §  2  ;  vol. 
i.  pp.  181-5.) 

NOTE  XLVIIL,  p.  40. 

The  tendency  of  the  modern  Historical  Criticism  has  been  to  dimin 
ish  greatly  the  value  formerly  attached  to  this  sort  of  evidence.  Mr. 
Grote  in  some  places  seems  to  deny  it  all  weight.  (History  of  Greece, 
vol.  i.  pp.  572-577.)  Practically,  however,  as  Col.  Mure  has  shown, 
(Remarks  on  Tico  Appendices,  &c.,  pp.  3-6,)  he  admits  it  as  sufficiently 
establishing  a  number  of  very  important  facts.  Sir  G.  C.  Lewis  re 
gards  oral  tradition  as  a  tolerably  safe  guide  for  the  general  outline  of 
a  nation's  history  "  for  a  period  reaching  back  nearly  150  years." 
(Credibility,  &c.,  ch.  iv.  §  2  ;  vol.  i.  p.  100.)  Special  circumstances 
might,  he  thinks,  give  to  an  event  a  still  longer  hold  on  the  popular 
memory.  Among  such  special  circumstances  he  notices  "commemo 
rative  festivals,  and  other  periodical  observances,"  as  in  certain  cases 
serving  to  perpetuate  a  true  tradition  of  a  national  event,  (ibid.  p.  101.) 

NOTE  XLIX.,  p.  40. 

The  modern  historical  critics  have  not  laid  much  stress  on  this  head 
of  evidence  in  their  discussions  of  the  abstract  principles  of  their 
science  ;  but  practically  they  often  show  their  sense  of  its  importance. 
Thus  Niebuhr  urges  against  the  theory  of  the  Etruscans  being  colonists 
from  Lydia,  the  fact  that  it  had  no  Lydian  tradition  to  rest  upon. 
(History  of  Rome,  vol.  i.  p.  109,  E.  T.)  Mr.  Kenrick  and  others 
regard  it  as  decisive  of  the  question,  whether  the  Phoenicians  migrated 
from  the  Persian  Gulf,  that  there  was  a  double  tradition  in  its  favor, 
(Kenrick's  Phoenicia,  ch.  iii.  p.  46,  et  seqq.,)  both  the  Phoenicians  them 
selves  and  the  inhabitants  of  the  islands  lying  in  the  Gulf  agreeing  as 
to  the  fact  of  the  emigration.  The  ground  of  the  high  value  of  such 
evidence  lies  in  the  extreme  improbability  of  an  accidental  harmony, 
and  in  the  impossibility  of  collusion. 


LECT.  I.  NOTES.  245 

NOTE  L.,  p.  41. 
Ezra  i.  1 ;  v.  17  ;  vi.  1-12.     Esther  ii.  23  ;  iii.  14  ;  vi.  1. 

NOTE  LI.,  p.  42. 
Analogy,  Part  II.  ch.  vii.  p.  329. 

NOTE  LIL,  p.  42. 

Let  it  be  ten  to  one  that  a  certain  fact  is  true  upon  the  testimony  of 
one  witness,  and  likewise  ten  to  one  that  the  same  fact  is  true  upon  the 
evidence  of  another,  then  it  is  not  twenty  to  one  that  the  fact  is  true  on 
the  evidence  of  both,  but  130  to  one.  And  the  evidence  to  the  same 
point  of  a  third  independent  witness  of  equal  credibility  with  the  others 
would  raise  the  probability  to  1330  to  one. 

NOTE  Lin.,  p.  42. 

See  Strauss,  Leben  Jesu,  §  13,  (vol.  i.  p.  64,  E.  T.)  For  a  com 
plete  refutation  of  this  view —  "the  shallowest  and  crudest  of  all  the 
assumptions  of  unbelief " 1  —  see  the  Bampton  Lectures  of  my  prede 
cessor,  Lecture  VI.  pp.  170-181,  [Am.  Ed.] 

NOTE  LIV.,  p.  43. 

See  Bauer's  Hebraische  Mythologie  des  Alten  und  Neuen  Testaments, 
quoted  by  Strauss,  Leben  Jesu,  §  8,  (vol.  i.  p.  25,  E.  T.) 

NOTE  LV.,  p.  44. 

Ecclesiastical  Polity,  Book  I.,  ch.  3,  §  4.  "Those  things  which  Na 
ture  is  said  to  do,  are  by  Divine  art  performed,  using  nature  as  an 
instrument ;  nor  is  there  any  such  art  or  knowledge  divine  in  nature 
herself  working,  but  only  in  the  Guide  of  Nature's  work.  .  .  .  Unto 
us  there  is  one  only  guide  of  all  agents  natural,  and  He  both  the 
Creator  and  Worker  of  all  in  all,  alone  to  be  blessed,  adored,  and 
honored  by  all  forever."  Compare  Dean  Trench,  Notes  an  the  Miracles 
of  our  Lord,  ch.  ii.  pp.  9-10. 

1  Hansel's  Bampton  Lectv,res,  Lecture  VI.  p.  W,  [Am.  Ed.] 

21* 


240  NOTES.  LECT.  I. 


NOTE  LVL,  p.  45. 

Plato's  Phaedo,  §  46-7.  "Now  when  I  once  heard  Anaxagoras 
reading  and  explaining  a  certain  book,  in  which  he  affirmed  that  there 
is  a  mind  which  disposes  all  things,  and  is  the  cause  of  all,  I  was 
delighted  with  this  view  of  the  cause  of  things ;  and  it  commended 
itself  to  my  judgment,  &c.  Indeed,  my  expectations  were  raised  to  the 
highest  pitch ;  and  having  with  great  pains  obtained  the  book,  I  im 
proved  the  very  first  opportunity  to  read  it,  that  I  might  know  as  soon 
as  possible  the  best  and  the  worst.  But  my  wonderful  expectations, 
O  my  friend,  met  with  a  woful  disappointment ;  for  as  I  read  on  I  saw 
that  the  man  made  no  mention  of  this  mind,  even  when  he  was  assign 
ing  certain  causes  for  the  disposition  of  things,  but  assigned  as  causes 
air,  and  ether,  and  water,  and  many  other  absurd  things."  The  "  Ves 
tiges  of  Creation"  and  other  works  of  the  same  stamp,  are  the  modern 
counterparts  of  these  Anaxagorean  treatises. 

NOTE  LVIL,  p.  46. 

On  the  latter  subject  see  Mr.  J.  H.  Newman's  Essay  prefixed  to  a 
portion  of  Fleury's  Ecclesiastical  History,  and  also  published  in  a 
separate  form,  (Oxford,  Parker,  1843  ;)  and  compare  the  views  of  Dod- 
well,  (Dissertat.  in  Irenaum,  ii.  28,  et  seqq.,)  Burton,  (Ecclesiastical  His 
tory  of  the  First  Three  Centuries,  vol.  ii.  pp.  5,  230-3,  &c.,)  and  Kaye 
(Tertullian,  p.  104  ;  Justin  Martyr,  p.  121.)  On  the  supernatural  ele 
ment  in  Heathenism,  see  Mr.  Newman's  Arians,  (ch.  i.  §  3,  pp.  87- 
91 ;)  and  compare  Trench,  Notes  on  the  Miracles,  ch.  iii.  pp.  21-3  ; 
Alford's  Greek  Testament,  vol.  ii.  p.  164  ;  Hue's  Voyage  dans  la  Tartarie, 
vol.  i.  pp.  295-6  ;  and  Havernick,  Handbuch  der  Ilistorisch-kritischen 
Einleitung  in  das  Alte  Testament,  §  23,  p.  244,  E.  T. 


LECT.  IL  NOTES.  24.7 


LECTURE    II. 

NOTE  I.,  p.  51. 

See  Home's  Introduction  to  the  Critical  Study  and  Knowledge  of  Holy 
Scriptures,  ch.ii.  §  1 ;  vol.  i  pp.  51-6,  sixth  edition;  Graves,  Lectures  on 
the  Pentateuch,  Lecture  I  ;  Hayernick,  Handbuch  der  Historisch-kritis- 
chen  Einleitung  in  das  Alte  Testament,  vol.  i.  ch.  ii.  § '  108  ;  Stuart's 
Defence  of  the  Old  Testament  Canon,  §  3,  p.  42,  &c.  This  fact  is  not 
denied  by  those  who  oppose  the  Mosaic  authorship.  (See  De  Wette's 
Einleitung  in  das  Alte  Testament,  §  163  and  §  164,  pp.  203-5.) 

NOTE  IL,  p.  51. 

The  history  of  the  controversy  concerning  the  authorship  of  the  Iliad 
will  illustrate  what  is  stated  in  the  text.  It  cannot  but  be  allowed  that 
arguments  of  very  considerable  weight  have  been  adduced  by  Wolf  and 
others  in  disproof  of  the  Homeric  authorship.  Yet  the  opposite  be 
lief  maintains  its  ground  in  spite  of  them,  and  is  regarded  by  the  latest 
Critic  as  fully  and  finally  established.  (See  Gladstone's  Homer  and  the 
Homeric  Age,  vol.  i.  pp.  3,  4.)  The  reason  is,  that  the  opposing  argu 
ments,  though  strong,  are  pronounced  on  the  whole  not  strong  enough  to 
overcome  the  force  of  a  unanimous  tradition. 

NOTE  HI.,  p.  51. 

For  instance,  De  "VVette  repeats  the  old  objection  of  Spinoza,  that  the 
author  of  the  Pentateuch  cannot  be  Moses,  since  he  uses  the  expression 
"beyond  Jordan"  as  a  dweller  in  Palestine  would,  whereas  Moses 
never  entered  Palestine.  (Einleitung,  &c.,  §  147,  a  4.)  But  all  toler 
able  Hebraists  are  aware  that  the  term  "G-?-1  is  ambiguous,  and  may 
mean  on  either  side  of  a  river.  Buxtorf  translates  it,  "cis,  ultra, 
trans."  (Lexicon  Hebraicum  et  Chaldaicum,  p.  527,  ad  voc.  "£•?•) 
So  Gesenius  and  others.  Even  De  Wette  admits  in  a  note  that  the 
expression  has  the  two  senses  ;  but  the  objection  maintains  its  place  in 
his  text  notwithstanding. 

De  "Wette's  translator  and  commentator,  Mr.  Theodore  Parker,  re 
peats  the  objection,  and  amplifies  it.  He  remarks,  that  in  the  Penta- 


248  NOTES. 


LECT.  II. 


teuch  the  expression  "  beyond  Jordan "  means  "on  the  east  side  of 
that  river,"  while  "this  side  Jordan"  means  "  to  the  west  of  that 
river."  (Vol.  ii.  p.  41.)  Apparently  he  is  not  aware  that  in  the 
original  it  is  one  and  the  same  expression  ("O-??1)  which  has  been 
rendered  in  the  two  different  ways. 

NOTE  IV.,  p.  51. 

Examples  of  interpolations,  or  insertions  into  the  text  by  another 
hand,  are,  I  think,  the  following :  Gen.  xxxvi.  31-9 ;  Exod.  xvi.  35-6, 
and  perhaps  Deut.  iii.  14.)  (See  Graves,  Lectures  an  the  Pentateuch, 
vol.  i.  p.  342,  pp.  345-6,  and  p.  349.)  The  first  of  these  cannot  have 
been,  and  the  others  probably  were  not,  written  by  Moses.  They  are 
supplementary  notes  of  a  similar  character  to  the  supplementary  chap 
ter  of  Deuteronomy,  (ch.  xxxiv.,)  in  which  every  commentator  recog 
nizes  an  addition  to  the  original  document.  (Graves,  vol.  i.  pp.  349, 
350  ;  Havernick,  Handbuch,  &c.,  §  134,  sub  fin.  vol.  i.  p.  549 ;  Home's 
Introduction,  &c.,  vol.  i.  p.  62  ;  &c.) 

The  other  passages,  which  have  been  regarded  as  interpolations,  such 
as  Gen.  xiii.  8,  xxii.  14;  Deut.  ii.  10-12,  20-23,  iii.  9,  11,  &c., 
may  (I  think)  have  all  been  written  by  Moses.  Havernick  (1.  s.  c.) 
maintains,  that  even  the  passages  mentioned  in  the  last  paragraph  are 
from  the  pen  of  the  Lawgiver,  and  holds  that  the  Pentateuch  is  alto 
gether  "  free  from  interpolation  "  —  the  last  chapter  of  Deuteronomy 
alone  being  from  another  hand,  and  constituting  an  Appendix  to  the 
Pentateuch,  or  even  an  Introduction  to  Joshua.  He  seems  to  think 
that  if  interpolation  be  once  admitted,  all  is  rendered  uncertain. 
"  From  interpolation  to  revision,"  he  says,  "is  so  short  a  step,  espe 
cially  if  we  conceive  of  the  latter  according  to  the  sense  and  spirit  of 
the  East,  that  we  should  find  it  impossible  to  oppose  any  barrier  to  the 
latter  supposition,  if  the  former  could  be  proved."  But  it  is  our  busi 
ness  to  be  guided  not  by  the  exigencies  of  controversy,  but  by  the 
demands  of  Reason  and  Truth.  It  would  be  strange  if  in  a  book  as 
old  as  the  Pentateuch  there  were  not  some  interpolations.  And  all 
reasonable  men  will  readily  see  that  a  few  interpolations,  whether  made 
by  authority,  or  glosses  which  have  crept  in  from  the  margin,  do  not 
in  the  slightest  degree  affect  the  genuineness  of  the  work  as  a  whole. 
(See  Home's  Introduction,  vol.  i.  ch.  ii.  p.  62;  Graves's  Lectures,  Ap 
pendix,  §  1,  p.  346,  and  pp.  355-361  ;  RosenmQller's  Prolegomena, 


LECT.  II. 


NOTES.  249 


p.  36 ;  Eichhorn's  Einleitung  in  das  Alte  Testament,  §  434,  &c. ;  Jahn's 
Einleitung  und  Beitrdge  zur  Vertheid.  der  Aechtheit  des  Pentateuchs,  p. 
60 ;  and  Fritzsche's  Prufung  der  Grilnde,  &c.,  p.  135.) 

NOTE  V.,  p.  51. 
De  Wette,  Einleitung,  $  145  ;  pp.  168,  16-9. 

NOTE  VI.,  p.  51. 

Ibid.  §  163,  p.  204.  "Against  the  authorship  by  Moses  the  entire 
analogy  of  the  language  and  literary  history  of  the  Hebrews  bears  wit 
ness.  ...  It  is  folly  to  suppose  that  one  man  could  have  created  in 
advance  the  epic-historical,  the  rhetorical,  and  the  poetical  styles  in 
their  fullest  compass,  and  also  these  three  departments  of  Hebrew  liter 
ature  in  their  contents  and  spirit,  and  have  left  nothing  but  imitation  to 
all  succeeding  writers." 

NOTE  VH.,  p.  51. 

Hartmann,  Ilistorisch-kritische  Forschungen  ilber  d.  Bildung,  8$c.  des 
Pentateuchs,  p.  545,  et  alibi.  Norton,  Genuineness  of  the  Gospels,  vol. 
ii.  p.  444,  second  edition.  The  objection  is  as  old  as  Spinoza.  (See 
his  Tractatus  Theologico-Politicus,  ch.  viii.  p.  154.) 

NOTE  VIH.,  p.  51. 
De  Wette,  Einleitung,  §  144,  p.  167. 

NOTE  IX.,  p.  52. 

Hartmann,  1.  s.  c.  So  Spinoza,  Tractatiis  TJieologico-Politicus,  ch. 
viii.  pp.  154-5. 

NOTE  X.,  p.  52. 

Lcben  Jesu,  Einleitung,  §  13,  vol.  i.  p.  60,  E.  T.  The  genuineness 
of  the  First  Epistle  to  the  Corinthians,  which  contains  so  many  refer 
ences  to  miracles,1  is  specially  acknowledged,  §  140 ;  vol.  vii.  p.  367, 
E.  T. 

1  See  especially  ch.  xii.  verses  9,  10,  and  28-30,  ch.  xiv.  2,  5,  6,  13,  &c.,  and  ch.  xv.  3. 


250  NOTES.  LECT.  II. 


NOTE  XI.,  p.  52. 

Strauss  allows,  though  with  evident  reluctance,  that  the  Acts  are,  or 
at  least  may  be,  the  work  of  St.  Luke  (Leben  Jesu,  §  13,  vol.  i.  p.  60, 
E.  T.)  He  regards  it  as  "  not  a  little  remarkable,  that  the  author 
makes  no  distinct  allusion  to  his  connection  with  the  most  distin 
guished  of  the  Apostles."  It  is  certainly  very  remarkable  how  com 
pletely  St.  Luke  keeps  himself,  and  his  own  actions,  in  the  back 
ground,  while  engaged  in  recording  the  history  of  events  in  which  he 
himself  took  part.  But  this  reticence  is  a  feature  of  that  humility 
which  characterizes  the  Sacred  Writers  generally. 

NOTE  XII.,  p.  52. 

It  was  the  existence  of  considerable  remains  of  Greek  literature,  ear 
lier  in  date  than  the  latter  half  of  the  sixth  century  B.C.,  and  an  exact 
acquaintance  with  it,  which  enabled  Bentley  so  thoroughly  to  establish 
the  spuriousness  of  the  alleged  Epistles  of  Phalaris.  In  the  Homeric 
controversy,  on  the  other  hand,  the  want  of  any  contemporary  litera 
ture  has  rendered  the  argument,  that  a  single  man  in  such  early  times 
could  not  possibly  have  composed  both  the  Iliad  and  the  Odyssey,  so 
weak  and  inconclusive  that  the  opposite  opinion  still  maintains  its 
ground,  and  on  the  whole  seems  tending  to  become  the  established 
one.  (See  above,  Note  II.) 

NOTE  XHL,  p.  52. 

The  only  remains  of  ancient  literature  which  are  even  supposed  to 
reach  as  high  as  the  age  of  Moses,  are  certain  Hieratic  Papyri  found  in 
Egypt,  belonging  to  the  nineteenth  or  even  to  earlier  dynasties.  Two 
of  these  have  been  translated  by  the  Vicomte  de  Rouge,1  and  several 
others  by  the  Rev.  J.  D.  Heath.2  But  it  is  very  doubtful  whether 
these  translations  give  much  real  insight  into  the  originals.  As  Mr. 
Goodwin  observes,  (Cambridge  Essays,  1858,  p.  229,)  «« Egyptian  phi 
lology  is  yet  in  its  infancy.  Champollion  got  little  farther  than  the 
accidence  of  the  language  ;  and  since  his  time  not  much  has  been  done 

1  See  the  Revue  ArcMologique  for  May  1852,  and  the  Rdvue  Contemporaine  for  1856. 

2  The  Exodus  Papyri,  London,  185*5. 


LECT.  II.  NOTES.  251 

in  the  investigation  of  the  syntax.  .  .  .  With  an  incomplete  knowledge 
of  the  syntax,  and  a  slender  vocabulary,  translation  becomes  guesswork, 
and  the  misconception  of  a  single  word  or  phrase  may  completely  con 
found  the  sense."  Hence  Mr.  Goodwin  and  Mr.  Heath  often  differ  as 
to  the  entire  subject  and  bearing  of  a  document.  (See  Mr.  Goodwin's 
Essay,  pp.  249,  259,  261,  &c.) 

NOTE  XIV.,  p.  53. 

The  antiquity  of  the  diction  of  the  Pentateuch  has  been  denied  by 
some  critics,1  among  others  by  Gesenius.  (See  his  Geschichte  der 
Hebrdischen  Sprache  und  Schrift,  §  8.)  But  Jahn  seems  to  have  estab 
lished  the  point  beyond  any  real  controversy.  (See  Jahn's  contribu 
tions  to  Bengel's  Archiv.,  vol.  ii.  p.  578,  et  seqq. ;  vol.  iii.  p.  168,  et 
scqq.  Compare  Fritzsche,  Prufung  der  Grttnde,  &c.,  p.  104,  et  seqq. ; 
and  see  also  Marsh's  Authenticity  of  the  Five  Books  of  Moses,  p.  6,  et 
seqq. ;  and  Stuart's  History  arid  Defence  of  the  Old  Testament  Canon, 
pp.  12-13.)  At  least  De  Wette,  writing  after  both  Jahn  and  Gese 
nius,  is  constrained  to  admit  that  archaisms  exist  in  considerable  num 
ber,  and  has  to  account  for  them  by  supposing  that  they  were  adopted 
from  the  ancient  documents  of  which  the  Compiler,  who  lived  later 
than  Solomon,  made  use.  (Einleitung,  §  157.  See  also  §  163,  where 
he  allows  that  the  linguistic,  as  distinct  from  the  literary  argument, 
against  the  Mosaic  authorship,  is  weak.) 

NOTE  XV.,  p.  53. 

This  is  abundantly  shown  by  Havernich,  (Handbuch,  &c.,  §  136  ; 
pp.  554-564.) 

NOTE  XVI.,  p.  53. 
See  Lecture  HI.,  pp.  80  and  81. 

NOTE  XVH.,  p.  53. 

Mr.  Norton  is  the  writer  who  in  recent  times  has  urged  this  point 
with  the  greatest  distinctness,  and  has  given  it  the  most  prominent 

1  Vater,  Mhandlung  \lber  Moses,  &c.,  \  393 ;  Norton,  Authenticity  of  the  Gospels, 
vol.  ii.  pp.  441,442. 


252  NOTES.  LECT.  n. 

position.  In  his  section,  headed  "  Some  general  considerations  re 
specting  the  Authorship  of  the  Pentateuch/'  he  begins  his  argument 
against  the  genuineness  -with  this  objection.  Moses,  he  says,  lived 
probably  in  the  fifteenth  century  before  Christ ;  certainly  not  much 
later.  ««  There  is  no  satisfactory  evidence  that  alphabetical  writing  icas 
known  at  this  time.  If  known  to  others,  it  is  improbable  that  it  was 
known  to  the  Hebrews.  They  could  not,  during  their  residence  in  Egypt, 
have  learnt  alphabetical  writing  from  the  Egyptians ;  for  the  mode  of 
representing  ideas  to  the  eye,  which  the  Egyptians  employed  till  a 
period  long  subsequent,  was  widely(?)  different  from  the  alphabetical 
writing  of  the  Hebrews.  If  they  were  acquainted  with  the  art,  they 
must  have  brought  it  with  them  into  the  country.  But  we  can  hardly 
suppose  that  it  was  invented,  or  acquired  except  by  tradition,  in  the 
family  of  Isaac,  or  in  that  of  Jacob  before  his  residence  in  Egypt,  en 
gaged  as  they  both  were  in  agriculture  and  the  care  of  cattle.  We 
must  then  go  back  to  Abraham  at  least  for  what  traditionary  knowl 
edge  of  it  his  descendants  in  Egypt  may  be  supposed  to  have  possessed. 
But  it  would  be  idle  to  argue  against  the  supposition  that  alphabetical  writ 
ing  was  known  in  the  time  of  Abraham"  1 

That  writing  was  unknown  to  the  Hebrews  till  the  time  of  the 
Judges,  was,  at  one  period  of  their  lives,  maintained  by  Gesenius  and 
De  Wette.  (See  Gesenius,  Geschichte  der  Hebraischen  Sprache  und 
Schrift,  §  140,  et  seqq.,  and  De  Wette's  Archaologie,  §  277.)  Both, 
however,  saw  reason  to  change  their  opinion,  and  admitted  subse 
quently  that  it  must  have  dated  at  least  from  Moses.  See  Gesenius' 
Hebrew  Grammar,  Excursus  I.  p.  290,  (English  Translation,  13th  edi 
tion,)  and  De  Wette's  Einleitung,  §  12,  p.  13.  The  bulk  of  modern 
German  critics,  whether  rationalist  or  orthodox,  acquiesce  in  this  latter 
opinion.  See  Ewald,  Geschichte  Volkes  Israel,  pp.  64-69,  Von  Lcn- 
gerke,  Kftnaan,  p.  xxxv.,  Havernick,  Einleitung  in  das  Alte  Testament, 
§  44,  &c. ;  and  compare  the  American  writer,  Stuart,  Old  Testament 
Canon,  §  3,  pp.  40,  41. 

NOTE  XVHL,  p.  53. 

See  the  statements  of  Sir  Gardner  Wilkinson  in  the  author's  He 
rodotus,  vol.  ii.  p.  311,  and  pp.  43-4.  The  date  assigned  to  the 
fourth  dynasty  rests  upon  the  same  authority. 

1  Genuineness  of  the  Gospels,  vo'..  ii.,  Appenlix,  Note  D..  $  3 ;  pp.  439-441. 


LECT.  H.  NOTES.  253 

NOTE  XIX.,  p.  53. 

Sir  Henry  Rawlinson  regards  the  earliest  inscribed  bricks  in  the 
Babylonian  series  as  dating  from  about  B.  C.  2200.  (See  the  author's 
Herodotus,  vol.  i.  pp.  435  and  440.) 

NOTE  XX.,  p.  53. 

See  Wilkinson's  statements  on  this  subject  in  the  author's  Herodotus, 
vol.  i.  pp.  306,  321,  &c.  He  regards  the  hieratic  character  as  having 
come  into  use  "  at  least  as  early  as  the  9th  dynasty,"  (p.  306,)  which 
he  places  about  B.  C.  2240.  A  considerable  number  of  hieratic  papyri 
belonging  to  the  19th  dynasty,  and  one  or  two  of  a  still  earlier  date, 
are  now  in  the  British  Museum.  (See  Cambridge  Essays  for  1858,  pp. 
229,  230.) 

Some  writers  urge,  that  the  Jews  could  not  have  learnt  alphabetic 
writing  from  the  Egyptians,  since  "  the  mode  of  representing,  ideas  to 
the  eye,  which  the  Egyptians  employed  till  a  period  long  subsequent, 
was  icidely  different  from  the  alphabetical  writing  of  the  Hebrews." 
(Norton,  1.  s.  c.  Compare  Havernick,  Einleitung,  §  42-43.)  But  the 
difference  was  really  not  very  great.  It  is  a  mistake  to  suppose  that 
the  Egyptian  writing  was,  except  to  a  small  extent,  symbolical.  Both 
in  the  hieroglyphic  and  the  hieratic,  as  a  general  rule,  the  words  are 
spelt  phonetically  first,  and  are  then  followed  by  a  symbol  or  symbols. 
(See  Mr.  Goodwin's  Essay,  p.  227,  and  compare  "Wilkinson,  Herodotus, 
vol.  ii.  p.  317.) 

NOTE  XXI.,  p.  53. 

Ur,  or  Hur  (^j*),  tne  modern  Mugheir,  has  furnished  some  of  the 
most  ancient  of  the  Babylonian  inscriptions.  (See  the  author's  He 
rodotus,  vol.  i.  p.  435  ;  and  compare  Loftus's  Chaldcea  and  Susiana,  ch. 
xii.  p.  130.)  It  seems  to  have  been  the  primeval  capital  of  Chaldaea. 
The  inscriptions,  which  are  either  on  bricks  or  on  clay  cylinders,  and 
which  are  somewhat  rudely  executed,  have  been  assigned  to  about  the 
22d  century  before  Christ,  (see  the  Herodotus,  vol.  i.  p.  440,)  which  is 
at  least  three  centuries  before  Abraham. 

Attempts  have  sometimes  been  made  to  determine  the  questions, 
whence  exactly  and  when  exactly  the  Hebrews  obtained  their  alpha- 

*>•?. 


254 


NOTES.  LECT.  II. 


betic  system.  (See  Havernick's  Einleitung,  §  44.)  It  is  consider 
ably  different  both  from  that  of  Egypt  and  that  of  Babylon,  while 
it  is  almost  identical  with  that  of  Phoenicia;  whence  it  is  inferred 
that  the  Hebrews  learnt  it  from  the  Phoenicians.  Of  this,  how 
ever,  there  is  no  evidence,  since  the  Phoenicians  may  equally  as  well 
have  learnt  of  them.  (See  the  statement  of  Eupolemus,  quoted  in 
Note  XXV.)  The  probability  seems  to  be,  that  the  family  of  Abraham 
brought  an  alphabetic  system  from  Ur,  which  may  have  been  modified 
in  Canaan  and  again  in  Egypt,1  and  which  may  not  have  assumed  a 
settled  shape  until  the  writings  of  Moses  fixed  it  for  after  ages.  The 
system  which  they  brought  may  have  been  either  originally  common  to 
them  with  the  Aramaic,  Phoenician,  and  other  cognate  races  ;  or  it  may 
have  gradually  spread  from  them  to  those  people. 

NOTE  XXIL,  p.  54. 

Hecataeus  of  Abdera  lived  in  the  fourth  century  before  Christ. 
He  was  a  friend  of  Alexander  the  Great,  and  wrote  a  work  upon 
the  history  and  religious  antiquities  of  the  Jews.  The  following  is 
his  testimony  to  Moses  :  — 

"When  in  ancient  times  Egypt  was  visited  with  a  pestilence, 
most  of  the  people  referred  the  cause  of  the  calamity  to  the  divinity. 
For  since  many  foreigners  and  strangers  dwelt  in  the  country,  who 
used  diverse  customs  in  regard  to  rites  and  sacrifices,  it  came  to  pass 
that  the  worship  of  the  gods  was  very  much  neglected  among  them. 
Therefore  the  native  inhabitants  of  the  country  conceived  the  idea, 
that  there  would  be  no  end  to  their  calamities,  unless  they  should 
rid  themselves  of  the  foreigners.  They  accordingly  banished  them 
without  delay.  The  most  illustrious  and  energetic  of  them  betook 
themselves,  as  some  say,  into  Greece ;  .  .  .  but  the  mass  of  the 
people  fled  into  what  is  now  called  Judea,  a  country  which  is  situ 
ated  not  far  from  Egypt,  and  which  was  at  that  time  nothing  but 
a  desert.  The  colony  was  led  by  a  man  named  Moses,  who  was  dis 
tinguished  for  his  great  prudence  and  courage.  This  man,  having 
taken  possession  of  the  country,  founded,  among  other  cities,  that 
one  called  Jerusalem,  which  is  now  very  celebrated.  He  built  also 

i  It  seems  scarcely  possible  that  the  resemblance  between  the  Hebrew  shin  and  tbo 
Egyptian  sh  can  be  accidental.  A  fainter  similarity  may  be  traced  in  some  other 
letters. 


LECT.  II.  NOTES.  2oo 

the  temple  which  is  so  greatly  honored  by  them,  and  appointed  the 
sacred  rites  in  honor  of  the  divinity,  and  organized  and  regulated 
their  civil  affairs."  After  giving  an  account  of  the  chief  points  of  the 
law,  Hecataeus  adds,  "It  is  also  written  at  the  end  of  the  laws,  that 
Moses  heard  these  things  from  God,  and  spake  them  to  the  Jews." 
(See  the  fragments  of  Hecatseus  in  Mons.  C.  Mailer's  Fragmenta  His- 
toricorum  Grtecomm,  vol.  ii.  p.  392,  Fr.  13.) 


NOTE  XXIIL,  p.  54. 

Manetho,  the  Egyptian,  was  also  contemporary  with  Alexander, 
and  wrote  his  Egyptian  History  under  the  first  Ptolemy.  His  words, 
as  reported  by  Josephus,  are,  "  Now  it  is  said  that  their  state  was 
organized,  and  their  laws  established  by  a  priest,  a  Heliopolitan  by 
birth,  named  Osarsiph,  from  Osiris,  a  god  who  was  worshipped  in 
Heliopolis ;  and  that  when  he  joined  himself  to  this  people,  his  name 
was  changed,  and  he  was  called  Moses."  (Fragmenta  Hist.  Grcec.  vol. 
ii.  p.  580,  Fr.  54.) 

NOTE  XXIV.,  p.  54. 

Lysimachus  of  Alexandria,  a  writer  (probably)  of  the  Augustan  age, 
abused  Moses  and  his  laws.  See  Josephus,  (contr.  Apion.  ii.  14:) 
"Lysimachus  and  some  others,  partly  through  ignorance,  but  more 
from  ill-will,  have  discoursed  concerning  our  lawgiver,  Moses,  and 
concerning  his  laws,  in  a  manner  which  is  neither  just  nor  true, 
calumniating  him  as  a  juggler  and  impostor,  and  affirming  that  his 
laws  teach  us  lessons  of  vice,  and  not  of  virtue." 

NOTE  XXV.,  p.  54. 

Eupolemus  is  by  some  thought  to  have  been  a  Jew ;  but  the  liber 
ties  which  he  takes  with  Scripture  seems  to  mark  him  for  a  heathen. 
Josephus  evidently  considers  him  such,  since  he  couples  him  with 
Dametrius  Phalereus,  and  speaks  of  him  as  unable  to  follow  exactly 
the  sense  of  the  Jewish  Scriptures.  (Contr.  Apion.  i.  23.)  He  lived 
in  the  latter  half  of  the  second  century  before  Christ,  and  wrote  a 
work  in  Greek  on  the  history  of  the  Jews,  which  was  largely  quoted 
by  Alexander  Polyhistor,  the  contemporary  of  Sylla.  (See  Eusebiu=>, 


256  NOTES.  LECT.  II. 

Prcpparatio  Evangelica,  vol.  ii.  pp.  370-3,  394,  423-433,  &c.)    Polyhistor 
thus  reported  his  testimony  concerning  Moses  :  — 

"Eupolemus  says  that  Moses  was  the  first  wise  man,  and  that  he 
first  taught  the  Jews  letters ;  —  that  the  Phoenicians  received  them 
from  the  Jews,  and  the  Greeks  from  the  Phoenicians ;  and  also  that 
Moses  Avas  the  first  who  wrote  laws  for  the  Jews."  (Fragtnenta  Hist. 
Grcec.  vol.  ii.  p.  220,  Fr.  13.) 

NOTE  XXVI.,  p.  54. 

Histor.  v.  4  :  "  Moses,  in  order  that  he  might  firmly  attach  the  people 
to  himself  for  the  time  to  come,  gave  them  new  rites,  contrary  to  those 
of  the  rest  of  mankind." 

NOTE  XXVII.,  p.  54. 

«•  Some,  having  descended  from  a  father  who  reverenced  the  Sabbaths, 
worship  nothing  but  the  clouds  and  the  divinity  of  heaven,  and  think 
that  the  swine's  flesh,  from  which  their  father  abstained,  is  no  dif 
ferent  from  human  flesh.  Besides,  they  also  remove  the  foreskin. 
And  they  are  accustomed  to  despise  the  Roman  laws,  while  they 
commit  to  memory,  and  observe  and  reverence,  the  Jewish  law, 
whatever  it  be,  which  Moses  delivered  to  them  in  a  secret  volume." 
Satir.  xiv.  9-1026. 

NOTE  XXVIII.,  p.  54. 

Longinus  does  not  mention  Moses  by  name,  but  it  cannot  be  doubted 
that  he  intends  him  in  the  famous  passage  where  he  speaks  of  "  the 
Jewish  legislator  "  as  a  person  historically  known,  and  as  the  writer 
of  Genesis.  "Thus  also  the  legislator  of  the  Jews,  who  was  no  ordi 
nary  man,  since  he  worthily  comprehended  nnd  declared  the  power 
of  the  gods,  writing  thus  at  the  very  introduction  to  his  laws,  says, 
« And  God  said ' —  what  ?  '  Let  the  light  be ;  and  it  was  ;  let  the  earth 
be ;  and  it  wa.s.'  "  De  Sublimitate,  §  9. 

NOTE  XXIX.,  p.  54. 

Ilecataeus,  Eupolemus,  Juvenal,  and  Longinus.  See  above,  Notes 
XXII.,  XXV.,  XXVII.,  and  XXVI1T.  Nicolas  of  Damascus  may  be 
added  as  a  witness  to  the  composition  of  th3  Pentateuch  by  Moses. 


LECT.  II.  NOTES.  257 

Speaking  of  a  certain  man  as  saved  in  the  Ark  at  the  time  of  the 
Great  Deluge,  he  says,  "This  may  also  have  been  he  whose  history 
is  narrated  by  Moses,  the  lawgiver  of  the  Jews."  (See  Josephus,  Antiq. 
Jud.  i.  3,  §  6.) 

NOTE  XXX.,  p.  54. 

According  to  some  writers,  Hellanicus,  the  contemporary  of  Herodo 
tus,  mentioned  Moses.  (Justin  Martyr,  Cohortatio  ad  Gentes,  §  8,  p. 
13,  D.  "Those  who  have  written  the  annals  of  the  Athenians,  Hellan 
icus,  and  Philochorus,  the  Atthidae,  Castor,  and  Thallus,  and  Alexander 
Polyhistor,  .  .  .  have  mentioned  Moses  as  a  very  early  and  ancient 
ruler  of  the  Jews."  Cyrillus  Alexandrinus,  Contra  Julianum,  i.  p.  15,  D. 
"Now  that  Moses  was  well  known  to  the  Greek  historians,  may  be 
easily  seen  from  those  things  which  they  have  written.  For  Pole- 
mon  has  mentioned  him  in  the  first  book  of  his  Grecian  History, 
and  Ptolemy  the  Mendesian,1  and  also  Hellanicus,  and  Philochorus,  and 
Castor,  and  others  besides  these.")  As  he  wrote  a  work  entitled  Con 
cerning  the  Nations,  or  Barbaric  Customs,  there  is  no  improbability 
in  this  statement.  It  is  less  easy  to  see  what  could  have  led  Philocho 
rus  (B.  C.  300)  to  speak  of  him,  but  we  are  scarcely  entitled  on  this 
ground  to  pronounce  (as  Mons.  C.  Mailer  does,  Fr.  Hist.  Gr.  vol.  i.  p. 
385)  that  Justin  misunderstood  his  author.  Polemon  of  Ilium  (ab. 
B.  C.  200)  seems  to  have  spoken  of  Moses  leading  the  Israelites  out 
of  Egypt.  (Africanus  ap.  Euseb.  Prtep.  Ev.  x.  10;  vol.  ii.  p.  512: 
"  Now  some  of  the  Greeks  also  relate,  that  Moses  lived  at  the  same 
time.  Polemon,  in  the  first  book  of  his  Grecian  History,  says,  « In  the 
reign  of  Apis,  the  son  of  Phoroneus,  a  division  of  the  army  of  the 
Egyptians  deserted  Egypt,  and  settled  in  what  is  called  Syrian  Palestine, 
not  far  from  Arabia  ;  these  were  they  who  were  with  Moses.'  "  Comp. 
Cyril.  Alex.  1.  s.  c. ;  Justin  Martyr,  Cohort,  ad  Gentes,  p.  11  ;  Syncellus, 
vol.  i.  p.  116.)  Apollonius  Molo,  Cicero's  instructor  in  rhetoric,  (about 
B.  C.  80)  called  Moses  a  juggler  and  an  impostor,  and  gave  a  very  in 
correct  account  of  his  legislation.  (Josephus,  Contra  Apionem,  ii.  14. 
Vide  supra,  note  24.)  Trogus  Pompeius  (ab.  B.  C.  20)  spoke  of  him 
at  some  length,  but  he  did  not  give  his  readers  very  correct  infor 
mation,  if  we  may  judge  by  the  epitome  of  Justin.  Justin  says,  "  His 

i  Mendes  was  a  city  of  Egypt,  situated  in  the  Delta.  It  gave  its  name  to  one  of  the 
mouths  of  the  Nile. 

22* 


NOTES.  LECT.  II. 

son  (i.  e.  Joseph's)  was  Moses,  who,  besides  inheriting  his  father's 
knowledge,  was  recommended  also  by  the  beauty  of  his  person.  But 
the  Egyptians,  when  they  were  suffering  from  the  itch  and  tetter,  in 
obedience  to  the  response  of  an  oracle,  in  order  that  the  disease  might 
not  become  general,  drove  him,  together  with  those  affected  by  the 
disease,  out  of  the  Egyptian  territory.  Being  made  therefore  the 
leader  of  the  exiles,  he  carried  off  by  stealth  the  sacred  images  of 
the  Egyptians.  The  Egyptians  attempted  to  recover  these  by  force, 
but  were  compelled  by  storms  to  return  home.  Moses,  therefore,  seek 
ing  again  his  ancient  country  Damascus,  took  possession  of  Mount 
Sinai.  When  he  came  thither  at  length,  with  his  people,  wearied 
with  a  seven  days'  journey  through  the  desert  of  Arabia  without  food, 
he  consecrated  as  a  day  of  perpetual  fasting  the  seventh  day,  called,  in 
the  language  of  that  people,  Sabbath,  because  that  day  had  put  an  end 
to  their  famine  and  their  wanderings.  .  .  .  After  Moses  his  son  Aruas, 
who  had  been  a  priest  of  the  Egyptian  worship,  was  next  made  king." 
(Hist,  xxxvi.  2.)  The  Egyptian  historians  Apion,  (B.  C.  30,)  Ca?remon 
(A.  D.  50,)  and  Ptolemy  of  Mendes — the  last  an  author  of  uncertain 
date,  probably  of  the  first  century  after  Christ  —  noticed  the  fact  of 
his  leading  the  Jews  out  of  Egypt.  (See  Tatian,  Oratio  advcrsus 
Grcecos,  §  37,  p.  273:  "Now  there  are  accurate  records  of  the  Egyp 
tian  chronicles.  And  Ptolemy,  who  was  an  interpreter  of  their  litera 
ture,  —  not  the  king  of  that  name,  but  the  priest  of  Mendes,  —  in  set 
ting  forth  the  acts  of  their  kings,  says  tha,t  in  the  time  of  Amosis,  king 
of  Egypt,  the  Jews  marched  out  of  Egypt,  and  went  into  whatsoever 
countries  they  chose,  under  the  command  of  Moses."  Compare  Clem. 
Alex.  Stromata,  i.  p.  379 ;  Cyril.  Alex.  1.  s.  c.  ;  Euseb.  Prap.  Ev.  x. 
11  ;  vol.  ii.  p.  519,  &c.  And  for  the  testimonies  of  Chseremon  and 
Apion,  which  will  be  adduced  in  Note  LXXXL,  see  Joseph,  c.  Apion. 
i.  32,  and  ii.  2.)  It  is  also  probable  that  Moses  was  mentioned  by 
Castor  the  chronologcr,  (about  B.  C.  160,)  and  by  Thallus,  the  frced- 
man  of  Tiberius.  (See  the  passages  from  Justin  Martyr  and  Cyril 
quoted  at  the  beginning  of  this  note.)  Numenius,  the  Pythagorean 
philosopher,  who  lived  in  the  age  of  the  Antonines,  called  Moses  "  a 
man  very  powerful  with  God  through  prayer,"  and  mentioned  his 
contest  with  the  Egyptian  magicians,  Jannes  and  Jambres.  (See 
Euseb.  Pi-fpp.  Ev.  ix.  8;  vol.  ii.  p.  358:  "Afterwards,  at  the  time 
when  the  Jews  ivere  driven  out  of  Egypt,  there  flourished  Jannes 


LECT.  II. 


NOTES.  259 


and  Jambres,  the  Egyptian  sacred  scribes,  men.  who  were  reputed 
inferior  to  none  in  magical  arts.  These  were  the  persons  who  were 
judged  worthy  by  the  Egyptian  populace  to  withstand  even  Mousseus, 
the  leader  of  the  Jews,  a  man  whe  was  very  powerful  with  God  in 
prayer  ;  and  they  were  found  able  to  remove  the  heaviest  of  the  calam 
ities  which  Mousseus  brought  upon  Egypt.")  (Compare  Pliny,  Hist. 
Nat.,  xxx.  1,  §  2.)  Nicolas  of  Damascus  also  mentioned  Moses,  and 
called  him  "  the  Jewish  lawgiver."  (See  the  passage  quoted  in 
Note  XXIX.) 

NOTE  XXXI.,  p.  54. 

The  only  classical  writer,  so  far  as  I  am  aware,  who  expresses  any 
doubt  with  respect  to  the  Mosaic  origin  of  the  Jewish  law  is  Strabo,  a 
very  untrustworthy  authority  in  the  field  of  ancient  history.  Strabo 
ascribes  the  establishment  of  Monotheism  and  of  the  moral  law  to 
Moses,  but  believes  the  ceremonial  law  to  have  been  added  by  his  suc 
cessor.  (Geographica,  xvi.  2,  §  35-37  :  "  For  Moses,  one  of  the  Egyptian 
priests,  dissatisfied  with  the  established  order  of  things,  made  great  in 
novations  in  every  direction ;  and  many  of  those  who  honored  the  divin 
ity  joined  his  secession.  Now  this  man  said  and  taught  that  the  Egyp 
tians,  and  likewise  the  Libyans,  were  in  error  in  likening  the  divinity  to 
beasts  and  cattle.  He  also  censured  the  Greeks  as  well,  for  represent 
ing  their  gods  in  human  form.  For  he  maintained  that  God  was 
nothing  else  but  that  which  comprehends  us  all,  and  the  earth  and  the 
sea  —  that  which  we  are  wont  to  call  heaven,  and  the  world,  and  the 
nature  of  things  ;  and  that  those  who  live  virtuously  and  justly  may 
always  expect  good  gifts  from  God,  and  tokens  of  his  favor  ;  but  that 
others  could  have  no  such  expectation.  Thus  this  man  became  popu 
lar,  and  established  his  authority  very  firmly  ;  for  all  those  who  were 
about  him  were  easily  induced,  by  his  personal  influence,  and  by  the 
benefits  proposed,  to  fall  in  with  his  views.  Now  those  who  came 
after  him  continued  for  a  time  in  the  same  course,  practising  justice 
and  showing  true  piety  ;  but  afterwards  there  were  introduced  into  the 
priesthood,  first  superstitious,  and  then  tyrannical  men.  The  former 
established  the  prohibitions  from  food,  which  they  are  accustomed  to 
observe  at  the  present  day,  and  the  circumcisions  and  excisions,  and 
whatever  else  of  this  kind  has  been  instituted  among  them  ;  and  the 
latter  introduced  oppressive  exactions.")  It  is  to  be  remarked  that 


260  NOTES.  LECT.  II. 

Strabo  quotes  no  authority,  whence  it  may  be  suspected  that  his 
account  is  based  rather  on  his  own  views  of  probability,  and  of  the 
natural  sequence  of  events  in  such  cases,  than  on  the  statements  of  any 
earlier  writers.  (See  his  words  at  the  opening  of  the  next  section.) 

NOTE  XXXH.,  p.  55. 

See  Exod.  xvii.  14 ;  xxiv.  4,  7  ;  Numb,  xxxiii.  2 ;  Deut.  xvii.  18, 
et  seqq. ;  xxviii.  58,  et  seqq. ;  xxix.  20,  27  ;  and  xxxi.  9,  24,  et  seqq. 

NOTE  XXXHI.,  p.  55. 
Strauss,  Leben  Jesu,  §  6  ;  vol.  i.  p.  20,  E.  T. 

NOTE  XXXIV.,  p.  55. 

See  particularly  Deuteronomy  xxviii.  58,  and  xxix.  20,  27.  Haver- 
nick's  comment  on  these  and  other  kindred  passages  deserves  the  atten 
tion  of  the  student.  (See  his  Handbook  des  Historisch-critischen  Einlei- 
tung  in  das  Alte  Testament,  §  108  ;  §  4,  pp.  14-19,  Clark's  Translation.1) 

NOTE  XXXV.,  p.  56. 

«'  The  Deutcronomist,"  says  De  Wette,  "  will,  as  it  appears,  have  his 
whole  book  regarded  as  the  composition  of  Moses."  (Einleitung  in  das 
Alte  Testament,  §  162,  d,  p.  203.)  Hartman  makes  a  similar  assertion 
with  respect  to  "  the  author  of  the  last  four  books."  (Forschungen  fiber 
d.  Pentateuch,  p.  538.) 

NOTE  XXXVI.,  p.  56. 

The  earliest  writers  whom  De  Wette  can  quote  as  doubting  the  gen 
uineness  of  the  Pentateuch,  are  Celsus  the  Neo-Platonist,  (A.  D.  130,) 
and  Ptolemy,  the  Valentinian  Gnostic,  a  writer  of  the  third  century. 
(See  his  Einleitung,  §  164,  a  ;  p.  205  ;  and  for  the  passages  to  which  he 
refers  see  Origen,  Contra  Celsum,  iv.  42,  and  Epiphanius,  Adversus 
Hcereses,  xxxiii.  4,  p.  207.)  Apion,  and  the  other  adversaries  whom 
Josephus  answers,  all  admitted  the  Pentateuch  to  be  the  work  of 
Moses. 

i  Hiatarlco'Critical  Introduction  to  the  Pentateuch,  Edinburgh.  Clark,  1850. 


LECT.  II.  NOTES.  261 


NOTE  XXXVH.,  p.  56. 

The  differences  in  the  rationalistic  views  of  the  time  when  the  Pen 
tateuch  was  composed,  are  thus  gummed  up  by  Professor  Stuart,1 
«« Almost  every  marked  period  from  Joshua  down  to  the  return  from 
the  Babylonish  exile,  has  been  fixed  upon  by  different  writers,  as  a 
period  appropriate  to  the  production  of  the  work.  To  Ezra  some  have 
assigned  the  task  of  producing  it ;  in  which,  if  we  may  hearken  to 
them,  he  engaged  in  order  that  he  might  confirm  and  perpetuate  the 
ritual  introduced  by  him.  To  Hilkiah  the  priest,  with  the  connivance 
of  Josiah,  Mr.  Norton  and  others  have  felt  inclined  to  attribute  it,  at 
the  period  when  a  copy  of  the  Law  is  said  to  have  been  discovered  in 
the  Temple.  Somewhere  near  this  period,  Gesenius  and  De  Wette 
once  placed  it;  but  both  of  them,  in  later  times,  have  been  rather 
inclined  to  recede  from  this,  and  to  look  to  an  earlier  period.  The 
subject  has  been  through  almost  boundless  discussion,  and  a  great 
variety  of  opinions  has  been  broached  respecting  the  matter,  until 
recently  it  has  taken  a  turn  somewhat  new.  The  haut  ton  of  criticism 
in  Germany  now  compounds  between  the  old  opinions  and  the  new 
theories.  Ewald  and  Lengerke  both  admit  a  groundwork  of  the  Penta- 
'teuch.  But  as  to  the  extent  of  this  they  differ,  each  one  deciding  ac 
cording  to  his  subjective  feelings.  The  leading  laws  and  ordinances  of 
the  Pentateuch  are  admitted  to  belong  to  the  time  of  Moses.  Ewald 
supposes  that  they  were  written  down  at  that  period.  Then  we  have, 
secondly,  historical  portions  of  the  Pentateuch,  written,  as  Ewald 
judges,  not  by  prophets,  but  before  this  order  of  men  appeared  among 
the  Hebrews.  .  .  .  Then  came  next,  according  to  him,  a  prophetic  order 
of  historical  writers,  about  the  time  of  Solomon.  .  .  .  Next  comes  a 
narrator  .  .  .  who  is  to  be  placed  somewhere  near  the  period  of  Eli 
jah.  .  .  .  Then  comes  a  fourth  narrator,  whom  we  cannot  place  earlier 
than  about  the  middle  of  the  eighth  century  B.C.  He  was  followed  by 
the  Deuteronomist  .  .  .  some  time  during  the  latter  half  of  Manasseh's 
reign.  .  .  .  Then  just  before  the  Babylonish  exile  the  great  Collectaneum 
or  Corpus  Auctorum  omnium,  was  brought  to  a  close. 

Lengerke  .  .  .  admits  a  groundwork ;  but,  with  the  exception  of  some 
laws,  it  was  not  composed  till  the  time  of  Solomon.  Next  comes  a 

1  Critical  History  and  Defence  of  the  Old  Testament  Canon,  \  3,  pp.  43,  44. 


262  NOTES.  LECT.  II. 

supplementarist,  who  must  have  lived  some  time  in  the  eighth  century. 
Then  comes  the  Deuteronomist,  as  in  Ewald  ;  but  he  is  assigned  by 
Lengerke  to  the  time  of  Josiah,  about  B.  C.  624. 

Each  of  these  writers  is  confident  in  his  critical  power  of  discrimina 
tion.  .  .  .  Each  is  sure  that  he  can  appreciate  all  the  niceties  and  slight 
diversities  of  style  and  diction,  and  therefore  cannot  be  mistaken.  Each 
knows,  in  his  own  view  with  certainty,  how  many  authors  of  the  Pen 
tateuch  there  are  ;  while  one  still  reckons  six  and  the  other  three.  .  .  . 
I  will  not  now  ask,  "Who  shall  decide  when  Doctors  disagree  :  " 

Compare  also  Havernick,  Handbuch,  &c.,  §  145  ;  §  41,  pp.  442-444, 
E.  T. 

NOTE  XXXYII.  5,  p.  57. 
Leben  Jesu,  §  13  ;  pp.  55-56,  E.  T. 

NOTE  XXXVni.,  p.  58. 

The  purpose  of  Moses  is  to  write  not  his  own  history,  nor  even  the 
civil  history  of  his  nation,  but  the  theocratic  history  of  the  world  up  to 
his  own  time.  This  is  the  clew  to  all  those  curious  insertions  and 
omissions  which  have  astonished  and  perplexed  mere  historians.  (See% 
Havernick,  Handbuch,  &c.,  §  106  ;  §  2,  pp.  1-7,  E.  T. ;  and  compare 
Lecture  VII.,  p.  178.)  Still,  his  own  history  to  a  certain  extent,  and 
the  public  history  of  his  nation,  up  to  his  time,  do  in  fact  form  the 
staple  of  his  narrative. 

NOTE  XXXIX.,  p.  58. 

Sir  G.  C.  Lewis  says,  "The  infidelity  of  oral  tradition,  with  respect 
to  past  occurrences,  has  been  so  generally  recognized,  that  it  would  be 
a  superfluous  labor  to  dwell  upon  it.  For  our  present  purpose,  it  is 
more  material  to  fix  the  time  during  which  an  accurate  memory  of  his 
torical  events  may  be  perpetuated  by  oral  tradition  alone.  Newton,  in 
his  work  on  Chronology,1  fixes  it  at  eighty  or  a  hundred  years  for  a 
time  anterior  to  the  use  of  writing ;  and  Volney  says  that,  among  the 
Ked  Indians  of  North  America,  there  was  no  accurate  tradition  of  facts 
which  were  a  century  old.  Mallet,  in  his  work  on  Northern  Anti- 

i  Chronology  of  Ancient  Kingdoms  amended,  (1728,  4to>)  Introduction,  p.  7. 


LECT.  II.  NOTES.  263 

quities,1  remarks  that,  among  the  common  class  of  mankind,  a  son 
remembers  his  father,  knows  something  about  his  grandfather,  but  never 
bestows  a  thought  on  his  more  remote  progenitors.  This  would  carry 
back  a  man's  knowledge  of  his  own  family  for  about  a  hundred  years  ; 
and  it  is  not  likely  that  his  knowledge  of  public  affairs,  founded  on  a 
similar  oral  tradition,  could  reach  to  an  earlier  date."  (Credibility  of 
Early  Roman  History,  vol.  i.  pp.  98,  99.) 

NOTE  XL.,  p.  58. 

See  Home's  Introduction  to  the  Critical  Study  and  Knowledge  of  the 
Holy  Scriptures,  ch.  ii.  §  1,  vol.  i.  p.  54.  "In  the  antediluvian  world, 
when  the  life  of  man  was  so  protracted,  there  was  comparatively  little 
need  for  writing.  Tradition  answered  every  purpose  to  which  writing, 
in  any  kind  of  characters,  could  be  subservient ;  and  the  necessity  of 
erecting  monuments  to  perpetuate  public  events  could  scarcely  have 
suggested  itself;  as,  during  those  times,  there  could  be  little  danger 
apprehended  of  any  important  fact  becoming  obsolete,  its  history  hav 
ing  to  pass  through  very  few  hands,  and  all  these  friends  and  relatives 
in  the  most  proper  sense  of  the  terms ;  for  they  lived  in  an  insulated 
state,  under  a  patriarchal  government.  Thus  it  was  easy  for  Moses  to 
be  satisfied  of  the  truth  of  all  he  relates  in  the  Book  of  Genesis,  as  the 
accounts  came  to  him  through  the  medium  of  very  few  persons.  From 
Adam  to  Noah  there  was  but  one  man  necessary  to  the  transmission  of 
the  history  of  this  period  of  1656  years.  Adam  died  in  the  year  of  the 
world  930,  and  Lamech,  the  father  of  Noah,  was  born  in  the  year  874  ; 
so  that  Adam  and  Lamech  were  contemporaries  for  fifty-six  years. 
Methusaleh,  the  grandfather  of  Noah,  was  born  in  the  year  of  the 
world  687,  and  died  in  the  year  1656,  so  that  he  lived  to  see  both 
Adam  and  Lamech  —  from  whom  (Adam  r)  doubtless  he  acquired  the 
knowledge  of  this  history,  and  was  likewise  contemporary  with  Noah 
for  600  years.  In  like  manner  Shem  connected  Noah  and  Abraham, 
having  lived  to  converse  with  both  ;  as  Isaac  did  with  Abraham  and 
Joseph,  from  whom  these  things  might  be  easily  conveyed  to  Moses  by 
Amram,  who  was  contemporary  with  Joseph.  Supposing  then  all  the 
curioiis  facts  recorded  in  the  Book  of  Genesis  to  have  had  no  other 
authority  than  the  tradition  already  referred  to,  they  would  stand  upon 

i  Ch.  ii. 


264  NOTES.  LECT.  II. 

a  foundation  of  credibility  superior  to  any  that  the  most  reputable  of 
the  ancient  Greek  and  Latin  historians  can  boast." 

NOTE  XLL,  p.  59. 

See  Sir  G.  C.  Lewis's  Credibility,  &c.,  vol.  i.  p.  101.  "In  a  nation 
which  has  no  consecutive  written  history,  leading  events  would  be  per 
haps  preserved,  in  their  general  outlines,  for  about  a  hundred  years. 
Special  circumstances  might,  however,  give  to  an  event  a  larger  hold  on 
the  popular  memory."  He  instances,  1.  The  attempt  of  Cylon  at 
Athens,  the  circumstances  of  which  were  remembered  in  B.  C.  432, 
one  hundred  and  eighty  years  after,  (Thucydid.  i.  126  ;)  and  2.  The  battle 
of  the  Allia,  the  memory  of  which  continued  (he  thinks)  among  the 
common  people  at  Home  to  the  time  of  the  earliest  annalists,  or  one 
hundred  and  fifty  years. 

NOTE  XLIL,  p.  59. 

The  force  of  this  argument  is,  no  doubt,  weakened,  but  it  is  not 
destroyed,  by  a  preference  of  the  Septuagint  or  of  the  Samaritan  num 
bers  to  those  of  the  Hebrew  text.  The  Septuagint  numbers,  which 
are  the  most  unfavorable  to  the  argument,  would  make  the  chain  between 
Adam  and  Moses  consist  of  eight  links  —  viz.  Mahalaleel,  Noah,  Salah, 
Reu,  Nahor,  Abraham,  Jacob,  and  Jochebed. 

NOTE  XLIIL,  p.  59. 

See  above,  Note  XXXVII. ;  and  compare  Havernick,  Handbuch,  &c., 
§  111,  (§  7,  pp.  45-48,  E.  T.,)  and  Home,  Introduction,  &c.,  ch.  ii.  §  1, 
vol.  i.  pp.  64-56. 

NOTE  XLIV.,  p.  59. 

Having  argued  that  the  Patriarchs  were  almost  sure  to  have  com 
mitted  to  writing  the  chief  facts  of  the  early  history,  especially  those  of 
the  Creation,  the  Fall  of  Man,  the  promise  of  Redemption,  and  the 
various  revelations  which  they  received  from  God,  Vitringa  says  — 
"  We  believe,  indeed,  that  Moses  collected  these  writings  and  papers 
of  the  patriarchs,  preserved  among  the  Israelites,  arranged  them,  pre 
pared  them,  filled  up  their  deficiencies,  and  out  of  them  made  up  the 
first  of  his  own  books."  (Observationes  Sacra,  i.  4,  §  2  ;  p.  36.) 


LECT.  II.  NOTES.  265 

NOTE  XLV.,  p.  59. 

Commentaire  Litttrale,  Preface,  vol.  i.  p.  xiii.  "Although,  strictly 
speaking,  it  is  not  impossible  that  Moses  might  have  learned  from  oral 
tradition  all  that  he  has  told  us  concerning  the  Creation  of  the  World, 
the  Deluge,  and  the  times  of  the  Patriarchs,  ...  yet  it  is  highly  prob 
able  that  this  Lawgiver  had  access  to  records  and  documents  which  had 
been  preserved  in  the  families  of  the  Jews.  The  detailed  account  of 
genealogies,  the  dates  of  events,  and  their  circumstances,  the  number 
of  the  years  of  the  lives  of  the  Patriarchs,  —  all  these  things  could 
hardly  be  learned  in  a  manner  so  precise  and  exact,  except  from  writ 
ten  documents."  Compare  Havernick,  (llandbuch,  &c.,  §  115  ;  §  11,  pp. 
81-2,  E.  T.,)  who,  while  he  maintains  that  the  narrative  of  Genesis 
"  has  its  origin  primarily  in  oral  tradition,"  still  allows  it  to  be  probable 
"  that  in  the  time  of  the  writer  a  part  of  the  oral  tradition  had  been 
already  committed  to  writing,"  and  that  "  the  author  makes  use  of 
certain  older  monuments." 

NOTE  XL VI.,  p.  59. 

See  above,  Notes  XIX.,  XX.,  and  XXI.  In  estimating  the  antiquity 
of  alphabetic  writing,  we  must  remember,  that  the  earliest  extant  speci 
mens  of  the  Babylonian  (which  have  been  assigned  to  about  the  22d 
century  B.  C.)  present  indications  of  previous  stages  having  been 
passed  through,  which  must  have  each  occupied  some  considerable 
period.  It  is  certain  that  the  Babylonians,  like  the  Egyptians,  began 
with  picture-writing.1  But  in  the  most  ancient  remains  this  stage  has 
been  long  past :  a  few  letters  only  still  bear  a  resemblance  to  the  ob 
jects  :  while  the  bulk  have  lost  all  trace  of  their  original  form.  The 
writing  too  has  ceased  altogether  to  be  symbolical,  and  (with  the 
exception  of  certain  determinatives)  is  purely  phonetic,  having  thus 
passed  the  second  stage  of  the  art.  In  Egypt,  the  hieroglyphics  of  the 
Pyramid  period,  (B.  C.  2450-2300,)  sometimes  "written  in  the  cursive 
character,  prove  that  writing  had  been  long  in  use."  (See  Wilkinson's 
Appendix  to  Book  ii.  of  the  author's  Herodotus,  ch.  viii.  $  9  ;  vol.  ii.  p. 
344.) 

1  See  Sir  H.  Rawlinson's  Essay.  "  On  the  Early  History  of  Babylonia,"  in  the  first 
volume  of  the  author's  Herodotus,  Essaj'  vi.  pp.  443,  444. 

'2} 


266  NOTES.  LECT.  II. 

NOTE  XLVIL,  p.  60. 

See  Bishop  Gleig's  Introduction,  in  his  edition  of  Stackhouse's  His 
tory  of  the  Bible,  vol.  i.  p.  20.  Compare  the  article  on  WHITING  in 
Kitto's  Biblical  Cyclopedia,  vol.  ii.  pp.  971,  972. 

NOTE  XLVHL,  p.  61. 

The  Armenian  History  of  Moses  of  Chorene  commences  from  Adam. 
Taking  the  Hebrew  Scriptures  for  his  basis,  he  endeavors  to  blend  and 
harmonize  with  them  the  traditions  of  primeval  times  recorded  by 
Berosus,  Abydenus,  and  especially  by  a  certain  Mar  Ibas,  or  Mar  Abas, 
a  learned  Syrian,  said  to  have  lived  about  B.  C.  150.  He  identifies 
Adam  with  the  Babylonian  Alorus,  (i.  3,)  Noah  with  Xisuthrus,  (ibid.,) 
Shem  with  Zervan,  who  (he  says)  is  the  same  as  Zoroaster,  (i.  5.  ;) 
Ham  with  Titan,  whence  the  Titans  are  the  descendants  of  Ham,  (ibid.,) 
and  Nimrod  with  Belus,  (i.  6.)  Armenian  history  is  regarded  as  com 
mencing  from  this  time.  HaTcus  or  HaYg,  the  fifth  descendant  of 
Japhet,  son  of  Thaclath  or  Togarmah,  revolts  from  Belus,  or  Nimrod, 
and  withdraws  from  Babylon  to  Armenia,  where  he  establishes  himself. 
War  follows :  HaYcus  is  attacked  by  Belus,  but  makes  a  successful 
resistance,  and  Belus  falls  in  the  battle,  (i.  9,  10.)  From  this  point 
Moses  seems  in  the  main  to  follow  native  traditions,  which  do  not 
appear  to  have  possessed  much  historical  value.  It  has  been  conjectured 
with  good  reason  that  "  the  earliest  literature  of  Armenia  was  a  series 
of  national  poems,"  and  that  these  compositions  furnished  Moses  of 
Chorene  with  a  great  part  of  his  materials.  (See  Prichard's  Physical 
History  of  Mankind,  vol.  iv.  p.  255  ;  and  compare  Neumann's  Versuch 
einer  Geschichte  der  Armenischen  Literatur,  published  at  Leipsic  in 
1836.)  Michael  Chamich  and  other  Armenian  writers  have  chiefly 
copied  from  Moses. 

NOTE  XLIX.,  p.  61. 

The  two  Epic  poems,  the  ll&mayana  and  the  Mahabharata,  profess 
to  be  historical,  but  are  not  thought  by  the  best  modern  authorities  to 
contain  more  than  some  "  shadow  of  truth."  They  are  assigned  to 
about  the  third  century  B.  C.  (See  Professor  H.  H.  Wilson's  Intro 
duction  to  his  translation  of  the  Rig-  Vcda-Sanhita,  pp.  xlvi.,  xlvii.)  The 
attempt  to  construct  from  them,  and  from  other  Sanscritic  sources  of 


LECT.  II.  NOTES.  267 

even  worse  character,  by  the  aid  of  Megasthenes  and  of  a  large  amount 
of  conjecture,  a  chronological  scheme  reaching  to  B.  C.  3120,  which 
M.  Bunsen  has  made  in  the  third  volume  of  his  Egypt,  (pp.  518-564,) 
appears  to  me  a  singular  instance  of  misplaced  ingenuity. 

NOTE  L.,  p.  61. 

The  Chinese,  like  the  Hindus,  carry  back  the  history  of  the  world  for 
several  hundred  thousand  years.  Their  own  history,  however,  as  a 
nation,  does  not  profess  to  commence  till  about  B.  C.  2600 ;  and 
authentic  accounts,  according  to  the  views  of  those  who  regard  their 
early  literature  with  most  favor,  go  back  only  to  the  22d  century  B.  C. 
(See  Remusat,  Nouveaux  Melanges  Asiatiques,  vol.  i.  p.  65.  "The 
history  of  China  runs  back  with  certainty  to  the  twenty- second 
century  before  our  era,  and  some  respectable  traditions  permit  us  to 
carry  back  the  point  of  departure  four  centuries  earlier,  to  the  year 
2637  before  Jesus  Christ."  Compare  Mailla,  Histoire  G6n6rale  de  la 
Chine,  vol.  i.  ;  Grosier's  Discours  Preliminaire  prefixed  to  his  Descrip 
tion  de  la  Chine,  published  at  Paris  in  1818-1820  ;  and  M.  Bunsen's 
Egypt,  vol.  iii.  pp.  379-407.)  The  entire  isolation  of  China,  and  the 
absence  of  any  points  of  contact  between  it  and  the  nations  of  Western 
Asia,  would  render  this  early  history,  even  if  authentic,  useless  for  the 
purposes  of  the  present  Lectures.  I  confess,  however,  that  I  put  little 
faith  in  the  conclusions  of  modern  French  antiquarians ;  and  that  I 
incline  to  look  with  suspicion  on  all  Chinese  history  earlier  than  the 
time  of  Confucius,  B.  C.  550-480,  when  it  is  admitted  that  contem 
porary  records  commence.  (See  Prichard's  Physical  History  of  Man 
kind,  vol.  iv.  pp.  475-9 ;  and  compare  Asiatic  Researches,  vol.  ii.  p. 
370.)  % 

NOTE  LI.,  p.  61. 

The  evidences  on  this  head  were  carefully  collected  by  Mr.  Stanley 
Faber  in  his  Bampton  Lectures  for  the  year  1801,  afterwards  published 
as  Hora  Mosaica,  ch.  iv.  pp.  130-184.  The  most  remarkable  tradition 
is  that  of  the  Hindus.  In  the  Bhagavat  it  is  related  that  in  the  reign 
of  Satiavrata,  the  seventh  king  of  the  Hindus,  mankind  became  almost 
universally  wicked,  only  Satiavrata  and  seven  saints  continuing  pious. 
The  lord  of  the  universe,  therefore,  loving  the  pious  man,  and  intend 
ing  to  preserve  him  from  the  sea  of  destruction  caused  by  the  deprav- 


268  NOTES.  LECT.  II. 

ity  of  the  age,  thus  told  him  how  he  was  to  act.  "In  seven  days  from 
the  present  time,  0  thou  tamer  of  enemies,  the  three  worlds  will  be 
plunged  in  an  ocean  of  death;  but  in  the  midst  of  the  destroying 
waves,  a  large  vessel,  sent  by  me  for  thy  use,  shall  stand  before  thce. 
Then  shalt  thou  take  all  medicinal  herbs,  all  the  variety  of  seeds ;  and 
accompanied  by  seven  saints,  encircled  by  pairs  of  all  brute  animals, 
thou  shalt  enter  the  spacious  ark  and  continue  in  it,  secure  from  the 
flood  on  one  immense  ocean  without  light,  except  the  radiance  of  thy 
holy  companions.  .  .  .  Then  shalt  thou  know  my  true  greatness, 
rightly  named  the  supreme  Godhead ;  by  my  favor  all  thy  questions 
shall  be  answered,  and  thy  mind  abundantly  instructed."  After  seven 
days,  the  sea  overwhelming  its  shores,  deluged  the  whole  earth  ;  while 
the  flood  was  augmented  by  showers  from  immense  clouds ;  when 
Satiavrata  saw  the  vessel  advancing,  and  entered  it  with  his  compan 
ions,  having  executed  the  commands  of  God.  After  a  while  the  deluge 
abated,  and  Satiavrata,  having  been  instructed  in  all  divine  and  human 
knowledge,  was  appointed  the  seventh  Menu,  and  named  Vaivaswata 
by  the  Supreme  Being.  From  this  Manu  the  earth  was  repeopled,  and 
from  him  mankind  received  their  name  Manudsha.  (See  an  Article  by 
Sir  W.  Jones  in  the  1st  volume  of  the  Asiatic  Researches,  pp.  230-4. 
Compare  Faber's  llorce  Mosaicce,  ch.  iv.  pp.  139,  140 ;  Carwithen's 
Bampton  Lectures,  III.  pp.  87,  88  ;  and  Kalisch's  Historical  and  Critical 
Commentary  on  the  Old  Testament,  vol.  i.  p.  138,  E.  T.) 

The  Chinese  traditions  are  said  to  be  less  clear  and  decisive.  They 
speak  of  a  "first  heaven"  —  an  age  of  innocence,  when  "the  whole 
creation  enjoyed  a  state  of  happiness  ;  when  every  thing  was  beautiful, 
every  thing  was  good  ;  all  beings  were  perfect  in  their  kind ;  "  whereto 
succeeded  a  "second  heaven,"  introduced  by  a  great  couvulsion. 
"The  pillars  of  Heaven  were  broken  —  the  earth  shook  to  its  founda 
tions  —  the  heavens  sunk  lower  towards  the  north  —  the  sun,  the  moon, 
and  the  stars  changed  their  motions  —  the  earth  fell  to  pieces  ;  and  the 
waters  enclosed  within  its  bosom  burst  forth  with  violence,  and  overflowed  it. 
Man  having  rebelled  against  heaven,  the  system  of  the  Universe  was 
totally  disordered.  The  sun  was  eclipsed,  the  planets  altered  their 
course,  and  the  grand  harmony  of  nature  was  disturbed."  (Faber, 
Horce  Mosaicce,  ch.  iv.  pp.  147,  148.) 

The  Armenians  accept  the  Scriptural  account,  which  they  identify 
with  the  Chaldaean.  They  can  scarcely  be  said  to  possess  any  special 


LECT.  II.  NOTES.  2G9 

national  tradition  on  the  subject,  except  that  which  continues  to  the 
present  day  —  the  belief  that  the  timbers  of  the  ark  are  still  to  be  seen 
on  the  top  of  Ararat.  The  Greek  tradition  concerning  the  Hood  of 
Deucalion  needs  only  to  be  mentioned.  Curiously  enough  it  takes  the 
form  most  closely  resembling  the  Mosaic  account  in  the  pages  of 
Lucian,1  the  professed  scoffer.  Traditions  of  a  great  deluge  were  also 
found  in  all  parts  of  the  new  world,  and  in  some  of  the  islands  of  the 
Pacific.  (Faber,  Horce  Mosaicce,  ch.  iv. ;  Kalisch,  vol.  i.  p.  140,  E.  T.) 

NOTE  LIL,  p.  62. 

See  Gen.  x.  10  ;  xi.  2-5  ;  xxxix.,  et  seqq.  Compare  Herod,  i.  7  ;  ii. 
2,  109-142 ;  Plat.  Tim.  p.  22,  B. ;  Diod.  Sic.,  books  i.  and  ii. ;  Justin, 
i.  1  ;  &c.  Josephus  well  expresses  the  grounds  on  which  the  Egyptian 
and  Babylonian  annals  are  to  be  preferred  to  those  of  all  other  heathen 
nations.  He  ranks  the  Phoenician  histories  decidedly  below  them. 
(See  his  work  Contra  Apionem,  i.  6  :  "Now  that  among  the  Egyptians 
and  the  Babylonians,  from  the  most  ancient  times  the  charge  of  prepar 
ing  the  public  records  was  committed,  among  the  former  people,  to  the 
priests,  who  were  skilled  in  this  business,  and  among  the  Babylonians 
to  the  Chaldeans  ;  and  that  of  the  nations  which  held  intercourse  with 
the  Greeks,  the  Phoenicians  were  the  most  familiar  with  letters  ;  —  all 
this,  I  think,  will  be  granted  to  me,  since  it  is  conceded  by  all.") 

NOTE  LIH.,  p.  63. 

Scaliger  was  the  first  to  draw  the  attention  of  scholars  to  the  writ 
ings  of  Berosus  and  Manetho.  In  his  work  De  Emendatione  Temporum 
he  collected  their  fragments  and  supported  their  authority.  The  value 
of  Manetho  was  acknowledged  by  Heeren,  (Uandbuchder  Geschichte  der 
Staaten  des  Alterthitms,  i.  2,  p.  54,  E.  T.,)  Marsham,  (Canon  Chronicus, 
Pref.  p.  2,  &c.,)  and  others,  before  much  progress  had  been  made  in 
deciphering  the  inscriptions  of  Egypt.  Berosus,  always  quoted  with 
respect  by  our  Divines,  did  not  find  much  favor  with  German  histor 
ical  critics  till  his  claims  were  advocated  by  Niebuhr.  (See  the  Vortrttge 
Uber  Alte  Geschichte,  vol.  i.  pp.  16-19.) 

1  De  Ded  Syri&,  $  12. 

23* 


270  NOTES.  LECT.  H. 


NOTE  LIV.,  p.  63. 

One  other  ancient  writer,  had  his  work  come  down  to  us  in  a  com 
plete  form,  or  had  we  even  possessed  a  fragment  or  two  of  its  earlier 
portion,  might  have  deserved  to  be  placed  nearly  on  a  level  with 
Berosus  and  Manetho :  viz.,  Menander  of  Ephesus ;  who  living  prob 
ably  about  the  same  time  with  them,  and  having  access  to  the  archives 
of  the  only  nation  which  could  dispute  with  Egypt  and  Babylon  the 
palm  of  antiquity  and  the  claim  of  inventing  letters,  composed  in 
Greek  a  Phoenician  history ;  which  seems,  from  the  few  fragments  of 
it  that  remain,  to  have  been  a  work  of  the  very  highest  character.  Of 
these  fragments,  however,  none  touch  the  period  between  the  Creation 
and  the  death  of  Moses  ;  and  it  may  even  be  suspected  that  Menan- 
der's  history  did  not  go  back  so  far.  At  any  rate,  if  it  did,  we  are 
completely  ignorant  what  representation  he  gave  of  the  early  times. 
(See  the  Fragments  of  Menander  in  Mons.  C.  Mailer's  Fragmenta  His- 
toricorum  Grcecorum,  vol.  iv.  pp.  445-8,  and  the  testimony  to  his  value 
borne  by  Niebuhr,  VortrAge  Uber  Alte  Geschichte,  vol.  i.  p.  17,  and  p. 
93,  note1.) 

Nothing  has  been  said  here  of  Sanchoniathon,  in  the  first  place 
because  it  seems  more  than  probable  that  the  work  ascribed  to  him  was 
the  mere  forgery  of  Philo  Byblius ;  and  secondly,  because,  though 
called  a  "  Phoenician  History,"  the  fragments  of  the  work  which  re 
main  show  it  to  have  been  mainly,  if  not  entirely,  mythological.  (See 
Movers,  JahrbUcher  fttr  Thcologisch.  und  Christlich.  Philosophic,  1836, 
vol.  i.  pp.  51-91 ;  Lobeck,  Aglaopk.,  p.  1264,  et  seqq.  ;  Niebuhr, 
Vortrdge  Uber  alte  Geschichte,  vol.  i.  p.  93,  note  l ;  and  C.  Mailer, 
Fragmenta  His.  Gr.,  vol.  iii.  pp.  560-1.) 


NOTE  LV.,  p.  63. 

M.  Bunsen,  speaking  of  the  Egyptian  monuments,  says,  "  Such 
documents  cannot  indeed  compensate  for  the  want  of  written  History. 
Even  Chronology,  its  external  framework,  cannot  be  elicited  from 
them."  (Egypt's  Place  in  Universal  History,  vol.  i.  p.  32,  E.  T.)  This 
may  be  said  with  at  least  as  much  truth  of  the  Babylonian  and  Assyr 
ian  records. 


LECT.  II.  NOTES.  271 


NOTE  LVL,  p.  64. 

The  following  is  Manetho's  chronological  scheme,  according  to  Euse- 
bius,  (Chronica,  i.  20,  pp.  93-107,  ed.  Mai.  :)  — 

Years. 

Reign  of  Gods 13,900 

Reign  of  Heroes 1,255 

Reign  of  Kings 1,817 

Reign  of  30  Memphite  Kings 1,790 

Reign  of  10  Thinite  Kings 350 

Reign  of  Manes  and  Heroes 5,813 

24,925 
Thirty  dynasties  of  Kings  (about) 5,000' 

29,925 
NOTE  LVTL,  p.  64. 

The  following  was  the  scheme  of  Berosus,  if  we  may  trust  Eusebius. 
(See  his  C'hronica,  i.  1,  and  4  ;  p.  5,  and  p.  18  :)  — 

Years. 

1.  Ten  kings  from  Alorus  to  Xisuthrus  reigned      .     .     . 

2.  Eighty-six  kings  from  Xisuthrus  to  the  Median  conquest 

3.  Eight  Median  kings 

4.  Eleven  kings 

5.  Forty-nine  Chaldsean  kings 

6.  Nine  Arabian  kings 

7.  Forty-five  kings  down  to  Pul 

466,581 
NOTE  LVin.,  p.  04. 

Vide  supra,  Note  LVL  M.  Bunsen  (Egypt's  Place,  &c.,  vol.  i.  p.  70, 
E.  T.)  accuses  Eusebius  of  having  changed  the  order  of  Manetho's 
numbers,  and  by  a  dexterous  transposition  he  seeks  to  transfer  to  the 

1  Baron  Bunsen  gives  the  sum  of  the  years  of  the  30  dynasties  as  4922,  4954,  or  5329, 
according  to  variations  of  reading  or  statement.    (Egypt,  vol.  i.  p.  82,  E.  T.) 

2  In  the  Armenian  the  number  here  is  33,091,  but  this  may  be  corrected  from  Syn- 
cellus.    (Fragm.  Hist.  Or.,  vol.  ii.  p.  503.) 

3  This  number  is  only  jriven  in  the  margin,  and  is  very  doubtful. 


272  NOTES.  LECT.  II. 

human  period  a  space  of  nearly  4000  years.    He  would  make  the  divine 
period  consist  of  the  following  :  — 

Years. 

1.  Reign  of  Gods 13,900 

2.  Reign  of  Heroes 1,255 

3.  Reign  of  Heroes  and  Manes  together     .     .     .      5,813 


20,968 
The  human  period  he  represents  thus  :  —   - 

1.  Kings  (no  capital  mentioned) 1,817 

2.  Thirty  Memphite  kings 1,790 

3.  Ten  Thinite  kings 350 

4.  Thirty  Dynasties  (say)      ........  5,000 

8,957 

But  there  is  absolutely  no  ground,  beyond  gratuitous  conjecture,  for 
making  this  change  ;  which  involves  Manetho  in  the  contradiction,  that 
Manes,  the  Ghosts  of  Mortals,  exist  before  there  have  been  any  mortals. 
(See  the  Fragmenta  Ilistoricorum  Grcecorum  of  Mons.  C.  Mdller,  vol.  ii. 
p.  528,  where  M.  Bunsen's  theory  is  rejected.) 

NOTE  LIX.,  p.  64. 

Chronographia,  p.  52,  D.  M,  Bunsen  was  the  first  to  call  attention 
to  this  passage.  (Egypt's  Place,  &c.,  vol.  i.  p.  86.)  If  sound,  it  is  of 
very  great  importance,  as  indicating  that  Manetho  knew  and  allowed 
that  his  kings  and  dynasties  were  not  always  consecutive.  It  has  been 
recently  denied  that  Manetho  did  this,  and  it  has  been  proposed  to 
amend  the  passage  of  Syncellus  by  introducing  into  it  the  name  of 
another  writer,  Anianus,  who  (it  is  supposed)  made  the  reduction  in 
question.  (See  an  Article  in  the  Quarterly  Review  for  April,  1859  ; 
Art.  IV.  pp.  395-6.)  But  this  emendation  is  quite  inadmissible  ;  for 
the  clear  object  of  Syncellus  in  the  passage  is  to  show  that  Manetho' s 
oicn  numbers  were  at  variance  with  Scripture.  Whether  Syncellus 
rightly  reports  Manetho  or  no,  is  another  question.  If  he  does  not, 
the  argument  in  the  text,  so  far,  falls  to  the  ground ;  and  we  must 
admit  that  Egyptian  Chronology  —  as  represented  by  Manetho  —  was 
about  2000  years  in  excess  of  the  Chronology  of  Scripture.  Still  we 


LECT.  II. 


NOTES.  273 


must  bear  in  mind,  that,  whether  Manetho  allowed  it  or  not,  his 
dynasties  were  in  fact  sometimes  contemporary,  as  is  proved  by  the 
Egyptian  monuments.  (Wilkinson  in  the  author's  Herodotus,  vol.  ii. 
pp.  343,  349,  &c.  Stuart  Poole,  Horce  jEgyptiacat,  pp.  110,  112,  123, 
&c.)  If  therefore  he  did  not  in  his  chronology  make  any  allowance 
on  this  account,  he  could  not  fail  to  be  in  considerable  excess  of  the 
truth. 

NOTE  LX.,  p.  65. 

See  the  latest  conclusions  of  Sir  Gardner  Wilkinson  in  the  author's 
Herodotus,  vol.  ii.  pp.  342-3  ;  and  compare  Mr.  Stuart  Poole's  Hora 
sEgyptiacce,  p.  97.  See  also  the  extracts  from  Professor  Rask's  Egyp 
tian  Chronology,  contained  in  Dr.  Prichard's  Historical  Records  of 
Ancient  Egypt,  §  6,  pp.  91-111. 

A  slight  error  has  crept  into  the  calculation  on  which  the  date  given 
in  the  text  (B.  C.  2660)  is  founded.  Sir  G.  Wilkinson  places  the  ac 
cession  of  the  4th  dynasty  about  B.  C.  2450,  and  allows  to  the  1st,  on 
which  he  considers  the  4th  to  have  followed,  241  years.  The  date  of 
Menes,  according  to  his  views,  should  therefore  have  been  given  as 
B.  C.  2690,  instead  of  B.  C.  2660. 

NOTE  LXL,  p.  66. 

See  the  fragments  of  Berosus  in  Mons.  C.  Mailer's  Fragmenta  Histor- 
icorum  Gr&corum,  vol.  ii.  p.  496,  Frs.  1,  and  5.  "He  says  there  was 
a  time  when  the  universe  was  but  darkness  and  water,  and  in  these 
were  generated  monstrous  animals,  of  strange  forms.  .  .  .  And  besides 
these  there  were  fishes  and  reptiles,  and  a  vast  number  of  other  won 
derful  animals.  .  .  .  And  over  all  these  ruled  a  woman,  whose  name 
was  Homoroka  :  now  this  word  in  the  language  of  the  Chaldees  is 
translated  Thalath,  but  in  Greek  Thalassa,  (i.  e.  the  Sea.)  Now,  while 
all  things  were  in  this  condition,  Belus  returned,  and  cutting  the 
woman  asunder  in  the  midst,  made  of  the  one  half  of  her  the  earth,  and 
of  the  other  half  the  heaven,  and  destroyed  the  animals.  He  says  that 
this  is  an  allegorical  cosmogony.  For  when  the  universe  was  in  a  fluid 
state,  and  animals  were  generated  in  it,  this  god  cut  off  his  own  head, 
and  the  other  gods  mixed  the  blood  which  flowed  from  it  with  the 
earth,  and  so  formed  men  ;  whence  it  came  to  pass  that  they  are  intel 
ligent,  and  partake  of  the  divine  wisdom.  Then  Belus,  divining  the 


274  NOTES.  LSCT.  II. 

darkness,  separated  the  earth  and  the  heaven  from  each  other,  and 
brought  the  world  into  order  ;  and  the  animals  that  could  not  endure 
the  power  of  the  light  were  destroyed.  Then  Belus,  seeing  that  the 
place  was  desolate,  though  fruitful,  commanded  one  of  the  gods  to 
cut  off  his  own  head,  and  to  mix  the  flowing  blood  with  the  earth, 
and  to  form  [men  and]  beasts  able  to  breathe  the  air.  Belus  also 
formed  the  stars,  and  the  sun,  and  the  moon,  and  the  seven  planets." 
(Ap.  Syncell.  Chronograph,  pp.  29,  30.) 

"After  saying  these  things,  he  proceeds  to  enumerate  the  kings  of 
Assyria,  individually  and  in  order,  —  namely,  ten  from  Alorus,  who 
was  the  first,  down  to  Xisuthrus,  in  whose  reign  occurred  that  first 
great  deluge  which  Moses  also  mentions."  (Ap.  Euseb.  Chronica,  i.  1, 
p.  5,  ed.  Mai.) 

NOTE  LXH.,  p.  66. 

See  Niebuhr's  Vortrftge  Uber  Alte  Geschichte,  (vol.  i.  p.  20,  note,) 
where  he  notices  the  abuse  of  the  parallel  made  by  some,  who  main 
tained  that  the  Mosaical  account  of  the  Creation  was  derived  from 
the  Babylonian. 

NOTE  LXKE.,  p.  67. 

See  the  well-known  passage  of  Josephus,  where,  after  remarking 
on  the  longevity  of  the  Patriarchs,  he  says,  "All  those  who  have 
written  on  the  subject  of  antiquities,  both  among  the  Greeks  and 
among  the  Barbarians,  bear  witness  to  the  truth  of  my  words.  For 
Manetho,  who  wrote  the  chronicles  of  the  Egyptians,  and  Berosus, 
who  collected  those  of  the  Chaldeans,  and  Molus  [read  Molon]  and 
Hestiasus,  and  besides  these  Hieronymus  the  Egyptian,  and  those 
who  composed  the  Phoenician  annals,  agree  with  what  I  have  said. 
Hesiod  also,  and  Hecataeus,  Hellanicus  and  Acusilaus,  and  besides 
these  Ephorus  and  Nicolaus,  relate  that  the  ancients  used  to  live  a 
thousand  years."  (Antiq.  Jud.  i.  3.) 

NOTE  LXIY.,  p.  67. 

SeeFaber's  Hora  Mosaics,  ch.  iii.  pp.  119,  120;  and  Home's  Intro 
duction,  vol.  i.  p.  158. 


LECT.  IL  NOTES.  275 


NOTE  LXV.,  p.  68. 

Fragmenta  Historicorum  Gracorum,  vol.  ii.  p.  501,  Fr.  7.  "In  the 
reign  of  Xisuthrus  there  was  a  great  deluge.  The  account  is  given  as 
follows  :  « Kronos,  appearing  to  him  in  his  sleep,  declared  that  on  the 
15th  day  of  the  month  Dassius,  men  would  be  destroyed  by  a  flood. 
He  commanded  the  king  therefore  to  commit  to  writing  an  account 
of  the  principles  and  progress  and  issues  of  all  things,  and  to  bury 
it  in  Sippara,  the  city  of  the  sun  ;  and  then  to  construct  a  vessel, 
and  to  embark  in  it  with  his  kindred  and  his  intimate  friends;  also 
to  deposit  therein  food  and  drink,  and  to  take  in  birds  and  quadrupeds ; 
and  having  put  all  things  in  order  to  set  sail.  .  .  .  He  therefore, 
obeying  the  command,  constructed  a  vessel,  whose  length  was  five 
stadia,  and  its  breadth  two  stadia ;  and  after  he  had  gathered  into  it 
all  things  as  directed,  he  embarked  with  his  wife  and  children  and 
intimate  friends.  But  when  the  flood  came,  and  forthwith  ceased, 
Xisuthrus  let  go  some  of  the  birds.  Not  finding,  however,  any  food, 
or  any  place  to  alight,  they  came  again  to  the  ship.  After  some  days, 
Xisuthrus  let  loose  the  birds  again  ;  but  they  again  came  back  to  the 
ship,  having  their  feet  covered  with  mud.  But  being  let  go  a  third 
time,  they  returned  no  more  to  the  ship.  Xisuthrus  then  understood 
that  the  land  had  appeared,  and  passing  through  a  certain  part  of  the 
seams  of  the  ship,  and  seeing  that  it  had  grounded  on  a  certain  moun 
tain,  he  went  forth,  with  his  wife  and  .daughter,  and  the  pilot,  and 
saluted  the  ground  ;  and  when  he  had  built  an  altar,  and  sacrificed 
to  the  gods,  he  and  those  who  came  out  of  the  ship  with  him  disap 
peared.  Now  those  who  remained  in  the  ship,  when  Xisuthrus  and  his 
companions  did  not  return,  went  forth  to  seek  him,  calling  his  name 
aloud.  But  Xisuthrus  himself  was  never  more  seen  by  them  ;  there 
came,  however,  a  voice  from  the  air,  which  commanded  them  to  be 
dutiful  worshippers  of  the  gods,  since  he,  in  consequence  of  his  piety, 
had  gone  to  live  with  the  gods.  ...  It  also  directed  them  to  go 
again  to  Babylon,  and,  according  as  it  had  been  decreed,  to  take  up 
the  letters  from  Sippara,  and  communicate  them  to  men  whom  they 
would  find  in  the  country  of  Armenia.  .  .  .  They  accordingly  camo 
to  Babylon,  dug  up  the  letters  which  had  been  buried  at  Sippara, 
restored  the  temples,  and  rebuilt  Babylon."  (Ap.  Syncell.  Chron.,  pp. 
30,  31.  Compare  Euseb.  Chronica,  i.  3,  pp.  14-16.) 


27(3  NOTES.  LECT.  II. 


NOTE  LXVI.,  p.  68: 

Fragment.  Hist.  Gr.,  vol.  iv.  p.  280,  Fr.  1.  "After  Euecloreschus, 
several  others  reigned,  among  whom  was  Sisithrus,  whom  Kronos 
forewarned  that  there  would  be  a  great  abundance  of  rain  on  the 
15th  of  DcEsius.  And  he  commanded  him  to  hide  every  thing  which 
pertained  to  letters  in  Heliopolis,  in  Sippara.  Sisithrus,  having  per 
formed  all  these  things,  immediately  sailed  towards  Armenia.  And 
what  the  god  had  foretold  straightway  came  to  pass.  Now  on  the 
third  day,  when  the  rain  had  ceased,  he  let  loose  some  birds,  to  try 
whether  they  could  find  any  land  above  the  water.  But  finding  noth 
ing  save  a  wide-yawning  sea,  where  there  was  no  place  for  them  to  rest, 
they  came  back  to  Sisithrus.  He  sent  forth  others  afterwards,  with  the 
same  result.  But  when  on  the  third  trial  he  succeeded,  (for  the  birds 
returned  with  their  feet  covered  with  mud,)  the  gods  snatched  him  from 
the  view  of  men,  and  the  vessel,  from  the  fragments  of  its  planks  used 
as  amulets,  furnished  to  the  inhabitants  of  Armenia  effectual  antidotes 
against  poison."  (Ap.  Syncell.  Chronograph.,  p.  70,  A. ;  compare  Euseb. 
Chronica,  i.  7 ;  p.  22,  ed.  Mai.) 

But  little  is  known  of  Abydenus.  He  is  first  quoted  hy  Eusebius  in 
the  fourth  century  after  Christ ;  on  which  account  it  has  been  generally 
supposed  that  he  did  not  write  till  the  second  or  third  century  of  our 
era.  (See  Niebuhr's  Kleine  Schriften,  p.  187,  note  4  ;  and  C.  Mailer's 
Fragm.  Hist.  Gr.,  vol.  iv.  p.  279.)  Some,  however,  regard  him  as  a 
contemporary  and  pupil  of  Berosus,  and  therefore  as  not  much  later 
than  the  time  of  Alexander,  (Bauer  in  Ersch  and  Gruber's  Encyclopedia, 
s.  v.  Abydenus  ;  C.  0.  Mailer,  History  of  Greek  Literature,  vol.  ii.  p. 
490,  E.  T.)  His  use  of  the  Ionic  dialect  favors  the  earlier  date. 


NOTE  LXVII.  p.  68. 

Buttmann,  (Mythologus,  i.  pp.  190,  200,  &c.,)  Von  Bohlen,  (Alte  Indien, 
p.  78,  et  seqq.,)  and  Hartmann  (Forschungen  fiber  d.  Pentateuch,  p.  795, 
et  seqq.)  maintain  that  the  story  of  the  flood  "  sprang  up  in  the  soil  of 
India,  whence  it  was  brought  to  the  Hebrews  through  Babylon,  after 
having  first  received  a  new  coloring  there."  (See  ILlvernick's  Einlei- 
tung,  §120,  pp.  266,  267;  §16,  p.  112,  E.  T.)  But  the  absence  of 
exaggeration  and  of  grotesqueness  from  the  Hebrew  account  suffi.- 


LECT.  II. 


NOTES. 


277 


ciently  disproves  this  theory.  It  might  be  argued  with  much  more 
plausibility  that  the  Babylonians  obtained  their  knowledge  from  the 
Jews. 

NOTE  LXVI.  6.,  p.  69. 

See  Niebuhr's  Vortrttge  liber  Alte  Geschichte,  vol.  i.  p.  23.  "This  ac 
count  differs  from  the  Noachian,  so  far  as  it  allows  to  be  saved  not 
only  the  family  of  Xisuthrus,  but  all  pious  persons,  and  supposes  not 
a  universal,  but  only  a  Babylonian  deluge." 

NOTE  LXVII.  &.,  p.  70. 

Antiq.  Jud.  i.  7,  §  2  :  Berosus  mentions  our  father  Abraham,  not  by 
name,  but  after  this  manner:  "  In  the  tenth  generation  after  the  flood, 
there  was  among  the  Chaldeans  a  righteous  and  great  man,  who  was 
also  skilled  in  the  knowledge  of  the  heavens." 

NOTE  LXVHI.,  p.  70. 

Ic  has  been  acutely  suggested  that  the  actual  scheme  of  Berosus  was 
probably  the  following  :  — 


YEARS. 

B.  C. 

1.  Antediluvian  dynasty  of  10  kings 

432,000 

466,618  to  34,618   ~)       g 

r  5 

34,618  to    2,458   J      £ 
2,458  to    2,234   ^ 
2,234  to    1,976 
1,976  to    1,518     1       g 
1,518  to    1,273     Y     1 
1,273   to       747     j      | 
747  to       625 
625  to        538   J 

2.  Dynasty  of  86  kings  (Chaldaeans  ?)  . 
3.  Dynasty  of  8  Median  kings  .  .  . 
4.  Dynasty  of  11  kings  (Chaldaeans?)  . 
5.  Dynasty  of  49  Chaldsean  kings  .  . 
6.  Dynasty  of  9  Arabian  kings  .  .  . 
7.  Dynasty  of  45  kings  (Assyrians  ?)  . 
8.  Dynasty  of  8  (?)  Assyrian  kings  .  . 
9.  Dynasty  of  GChaldzean  kings  .  .  . 

34,080 
224 
[258]  i 
458 
245 
526 
122 
87 

36,000 

1  This  number  fills  up  the  blank  in  Euseb.  Chron.  i.  4,  p.  18,  where  48  is  absurdly 
suggested  in  the  margin.  See  above,  Note  LVII.  It  is  conjectural,  but  it  seems  re 
quired  by  the  native  tradition  that  Babylon  was  founded  1903  before  Alexander's  cap 
ture  of  it,  or  B.  C.  2234. 

24 


278  NOTES.  LECT.  II. 

(See  Gutschmidt  in  the  Rheinisches  Museum,  vol.  viii.  p.  252 ;  who  is 
followed  by  Brandis,  Rerum  Assyriarum  Tempora  Emendata,  p.  17  ;  and 
Sir  H.  Rawlinson  in  the  Journal  of  the  Asiatic  Society,  vol.  xv.  part  2  ;  p. 
218.)  If  this  be  a  true  representation,  it  would  follow  that  the  number 
34,080  is  purely  artificial,  being  simply  the  number  required  to  make 
up  the  great  Babylonian  year  or  cycle  of  36,000  years,  in  conjunction 
with  the  years  of  the  real  historical  dynasties.  The  first  number,  432,000, 
is  made  up  of  12  such  cycles,  (36,000  X  12  =  432,000.) 

NOTE  LXIX.,   p.  70. 

See  the  Fragments  of  Abydenus  in  Mailer's  Fragm.  Hist.  Gr,,  vol.  iv. 
p.  282,  Fr.  6:  "At  that  time  the  men  of  antiquity  are  said  to  have 
been  so  puffed  up  with  strength  and  haughtiness,  that  they  despised 
even  the  gods,  and  undertook  to  build  that  lofty  obelisk  which  is  now 
called  Babylon.  And  when  they  had  already  built  it  up  into  the  heavens 
almost  as  high  as  the  gods,  the  gods,  by  the  help  of  the  winds,  smote 
the  well-contrived  but  futile  work,  and  prostrated  it  to  the  ground. 
And  that  rubbish  took  the  name  of  Babel.  For  up  to  that  tune  men 
relied  upon  the  use  of  one  language  ;  but  then  a  various  and  discordant 
confusion  of  tongues  was  sent  by  the  gods  upon  those  who  had  hereto 
fore  used  but  one  language."  (Ap.  Euseb.  Chronica,  i.  8,  p.  24.)  Com 
pare  also  the  subjoined  passage,  which  Syncellus  quotes  from  Poly- 
histor  :  "  Now  the  Sibyl  says,  that  when  all  men  were  of  one  speech, 
some  of  them  built  a  huge  tower,  that  they  might  ascend  up  to  heaven. 
But  God  caused  a  wind  to  blow,  and  overthrew  their  design,  and  gave 
to  each  a  different  language ;  wherefore  the  city  was  called  Babylon. 
(Chronograph.,  p.  81,  C.) 

NOTE  LXX.,  p.  71. 

The  affinity  of  the  Sanskrit  with  the  Persian,  Greek,  Latin,  and  Ger 
man  languages  was  first  remarked  by  our  own  countryman,  Sir  W. 
Jones ;  but  it  remained  for  F.  Schlegel  in  Germany  and  for  Dr.  Prichard 
in  England  to  make  a  scientific  use  of  the  material  thus  provided  for 
them.  Schlegel's  "Essay  on  the  Language  and  Philosophy  of  the 
Hindoos,"  and  Dr.  Prichard's  inaugural  ««  Dissertation  on  the  Varieties 
of  the  Human  Race,"  were  published  almost  simultaneously ;  but 
Schlegel's  work  is  regarded  as  the  more  advanced  production.  (See 
Bunsen's  Philosophy  of  Universal  History,  vol.  ii.  p.  50.) 


LECT.  H.  NOTES.  279 


NOTE  LXXL,  p.  71. 

In  1854  M.  Bunsen  wrote :  "  Geographically  then,  and  historically, 
it  is  true  that  Canaan  was  the  son  of  Egypt ;  for  the  Canaanitic  tribes 
which  inhabited  historical  Canaan  came  from  Egypt.  In  the  same  sense, 
Nimrod  is  called  a  Kushite,  which  means  a  man  of  the  land  of  Kush. 
The  Bible  mentions  but  one  Kush,  ^Ethiopia ;  an  Asiatic  Kush  exists 
only  in  the  imagination  of  the  interpreters,  and  is  the  child  of  their  despair. 
Now,  Nimrod  icas  no  more  a  Kushite  by  blood  than  Canaan  was  an  Egyp 
tian  ;  but  the  Turanian  (Transoxanian)  tribe,  represented  by  him,  came 
as  a  devastating  people,  which  had  previously  conquered  that  part  of 
Africa,  back  into  Asia,  and  there  established  the  first  great  empire." 
(Philosophy  of  Univ.  History,  vol.  i.  p.  191.)  But  in  1858,  Sir  Henry 
Bawlinson,  having  obtained  a  number  of  Babylonian  documents  more 
ancient  than  any  previously  discovered,  was  able  to  declare  authorita 
tively,  that  the  early  inhabitants  of  Southern  Babylonia  "  were  of  a 
cognate  race  with  the  primitive  colonists  both  of  Arabia  and  of  the 
African  Ethiopia."  (See  the  author's  Herodotus,  vol.  i.  p.  442.)  He 
found  their  vocabulary  to  be  "undoubtedly  Cushite  or  Ethiopian,"  be 
longing  to  that  stock  of  tongues  which  in  the  sequel  were  every  where 
more  or  less  mixed  up  with  the  Semitic  languages,  but  of  which  we 
have  the  purest  modern  specimens  in  the  Mahra  of  Southern  Arabia, 
and  the  Galla  of  Abyssinia."  (Ibid,  note  9.)  He  found  also  that 
«« the  traditions  both  of  Babylonia  and  Assyria  pointed  to  a  connection 
in  very  early  times  between  Ethiopia,  Southern  Arabia,  and  the  cities 
on  the  Lower  Euphrates."  (Ibid.)  He  therefore  adopted  the  term 
Cushite  as  the  most  proper  title  by  which  to  distinguish  the  earlier 
from  the  later  Babylonians ;  and  reestablished  beyond  all  doubt  or 
question  the  fact  of  "an  Asiatic  Ethiopia,"  which  probably  no  one 
now  would  be  hardy  enough  to  deny.  (See,  besides  the  Essay  referred 
to  above,  Essay  xi.  of  the  same  volume,  p.  655,  and  an  elaborate  Ar 
ticle  in  the  Journal  of  the  Asiatic  Society,  vol.  xv.  part  2,  pp.  215-259.) 

NOTE  LXXIL,  p.  71. 

The  monuments  give  distinct  evidence  of  the  early  predominance  of 
Babylonia  over  Assyria,  of  the  spread  of  population  and  civilization 
northwards,  and  of  the  comparatively  late  founding  of  Nineveh.  (See 


280  NOTES.  LECT.  II. 

the  author's  Herodotus,  vol.  i.  pp.  448,  455,  456,  &c.)  They  do  not 
exactly  prove  the  colonization  of  Assyria  by  Semites  from  Babylonia, 
but  they  favor  it.  (Ibid.  pp.  447  and  647.) 

NOTE  LXXHL,  p.  71. 

The  Hamitic  descent  of  the  Canaanites  is  energetically  denied  by  M. 
Bunsen,  (Philosophy  of  Univ.  Hist.,  vol.  i.  pp.  190  and  244,)  who  iden 
tifies  them  with  the  Phoenicians,  and  regards  their  Semitic  character  as 
established.  But  the  researches  of  Sir  H.  Rawlinson  have  convinced 
him,  that  the  Canaanites  proper  were  not  Semites.  He  holds  that  they 
had  a  "  common  origin"  with  the  Egyptians,  Ethiopians,  and  Libyans, 
—  an  origin  which  he  calls  indifferently  Scythic  or  Hamite.  "  All 
the  Canaanites,"  he  says,  "  were,  I  am  satisfied,  Scyths  ;  and  the  inhab 
itants  of  Syria  retained  their  distinctive  ethnic  character  until  quite  a 
late  period  of  history.  According  to  the  inscriptions  the  Khatta,  or 
Hittites,  were  the  dominant  Scythic  race  from  the  earliest  times,  and 
they  gave  way  very  slowly  before  the  Aramaeans,  Jews,  and  Phceni- 
cians,  who  were  the  only  extensive  Semitic  immigrants."  (Journal  of 
Asiatic  Society,  vol.  xv.  part  2,  p.  230,  note.) 

NOTE  LXXIV.,  p.  72. 

See  M.  Bunsen's  Philosophy  of  Univ.  Hist.,  vol.  i.  pp.  221-230, 
where,  though  classing  the  Himyaric  with  the  Semitic  languages,  he 
admits  its  close  resemblance,  both  in  vocabulary  and  in  grammatical 
forms,  to  the  Ethiopic  ;  and  compare  the  author's  Herodotus,  vol.  i.  p. 
447,  note  4,  and  pp.  659,  660. 

NOTE  LXXV.,  p.  72. 

See  Sir  H.  Rawlinson,  in  the  Asiatic  Society's  Journal,  1.  s.  c.  "The 
Toldoth  Beni  Noah  is  undoubtedly  the  most  authentic  record  we  possess 
for  the  affiliation  of  those  branches  of  the  human  race  which  sprung 
from  the  triple  stock  of  the  Noachidae."  And  again,  p.  215,  note  3  : 
"The  fragment  which  forms  the  tenth  chapter  of  Genesis  bears  the 
Hebrew  title  of  Toldoth  Beni  Noah,  or  the  Genealogies  of  the  Noa 
chidae,  and  is  probably  of  the  very  greatest  antiquity."  Compare  also 
the  author's  Herodotus,  (vol.  i.  p.  445,)  where  the  same  ethnologist 


LECT.  II.  NOTES.  281 

remarks  :  "  "We  must  be  cautious  in  drawing  direct  ethnological  infer 
ences  from  the  linguistic  indications  of  a  very  early  age.  It  will  be  far 
safer,  at  any  rate,  in  these  early  times  to  follow  the  general  scheme  of 
ethnic  affiliation  which  is  given  in  the  tenth  chapter  of  Genesis." 

NOTE  LXXVL,  p.  72. 

The  passages  to  which  reference  is  here  made  will  all  be  found  in  the 
second  volume  of  Dr.  Gaisford's  edition  of  the  work  of  Eusebius,  pp. 
370-392.  They  were  derived  by  Eusebius  from  the  "Jewish  History" 
of  Alexander  Polyhistor,  a  heathen  writer.  It  is  thought  that  some  of 
Polyhistor's  authorities,  as  Artapanus,  Cleodemus,  Demetrius,  and 
Eupolemus,  were  Jews.  (See  the  remarks  of  C.  Mailer  in  his  preface 
to  the  fragments  of  Polyhistor,  Fragment.  Hist.  Gr.,  vol.  iii.  p.  207.) 
If  this  be  allowed,  the  weight  of  heathen  testimony  is  of  course  pro  tanto 
diminished.  But  reasons  have  been  already  given  for  regarding  Eupol 
emus  as  a  heathen.  (See  above,  Note  XXV.)  And  the  religious  char 
acter  of  the  other  three  is  at  least  doubtful. 

To  the  writers  mentioned  in  the  text  may  be  added,  Nicolas  of  Da 
mascus,  who  spoke  of  Abraham's  emigration  from  Chaldrea  and  settle 
ment  in  Canaan.  (See  the  Frag.  Hist.  Gr.,  vol.  iii.  p.  373.) 

NOTE  LXXVH.,  p.  72. 

See  especially  Faber's  Hora  Mosaics,  ch.  v.  pp.  225-228  ;  and  com 
pare  Patrick's  Commentary  on  the  Historical  Books  of  the  Old  Testament, 
vol.  i.  p.  58  ;  Home's  Introduction  to  the  Critical  Study  and  Knowledge 
of  Holy  Scripture,  vol.  i.  p.  174,  &c. 

NOTE  LXXVHL,  p.  73. 

Sir  H.  Rawlinson,  in  the  author's  Herodotus,  vol.  i.  Essay  vi.  p. 
446. 

NOTE  LXXIX.,  p.  73. 

The  name  of  the  king  whom  Sir  H.  Rawlinson  identifies  with 
Chedor-laomer  is,  in  the  native  (Hamitic)  Babylonian,  Kudur-Mabuk. 
Mabnk  in  Hamitic  is  found  to  be  the  exact  equivalent  of  Lsuwwr  i^ 
Semitic.  This  is  a  very  recent  discovery. 

24* 


282  NOTES.  LECT.  II. 

NOTE  LXXX.,  p.  73. 

By  means  of  certain  monumental  notices  it  has  been  proved,  with  a 
near  approach  to  certainty,  that  a  Babylonian  monarch,  whose  name  is 
read  as  Ismi-dagon,  reigned  about  B.  C.  1860.  Kudur-Mabuk  is  evi 
dently,  by  the  type  of  writing  which  he  uses,  and  the  position  in  which 
his  bricks  are  found,  considerably  earlier.  Now  in  the  year  B.  C.  1976 
—  a  century  before  Ismi-dagon  —  occurs  one  of  the  breaks  in  Bero- 
sus'  list ;  and  this  break  moreover  occurs  within  60  years  of  the  date 
(B.  C.  1917)  commonly  assigned  to  the  expedition  of  Chedor-laomer. 
These  chronological  coincidences  strongly  confirm  the  argument  from 
the  identity  of  name. 

NOTE  LXXXI.,  p.  74. 

This  passage  is  probably  known  to  most  students,  but  as  it  is  too 
important  to  be  omitted  from  the  present  review  of  the  historical  evi 
dences,  I  subjoin  it  entire. 

"  Manetho  .  .  .  introducing  a  supposititious  king,  Amenophis,  says 
that  he  desired  to  see  the  gods,  as  Orus  had  done,  one  of  those  who 
reigned  before  him.  He  expressed  this  desire  to  his  namesake  Amen 
ophis,  the  son  of  Paapis,  who  had  the  reputation  of  being  a  partaker 
of  the  divine  nature,  on  account  of  his  wisdom  and  knowledge  of  the 
future.  His  namesake  accordingly  told  him  that  he  would  be  able  to 
see  the  gods,  if  he  should  purge  the  whole  country  of  lepers,  and  all 
other  polluted  men.  Delighted  with  this  promise,  the  king  gathered 
out  of  Egypt  all  who  had  any  bodily  defect,  and  placed  them  in  the 
quarries,  on  the  east  side  of  the  Nile,  that  they  might  work  in  them, 
and  be  separate  from  the  rest  of  the  Egyptians.  He  says  also  that  there 
were  among  them  some  of  the  learned  priests  afflicted  with  the  leprosy ; 
but  that  Amenophis,  the  wise  man  and  prophet,  feared  the  anger  of  the 
gods  towards  himself  and  the  king,  if  they  should  see  the  gods  without 
their  consent.  He  also  declared,  that  certain  men  would  form  an  alli 
ance  with  these  polluted  persons,  and  would  get  possession  of  Egypt, 
and  hold  it  for  thirteen  years.  But  not  daring  to  tell  these  things  to 
the  king,  he  committed  them  all  to  writing,  and  then  destroyed  him 
self,  to  the  great  grief  of  the  king.  After  this  he  writes  thus,  word  for 
word.  '  But  when  those  who  were  sent  to  the  mines  had  endured  their 
misery  for  a  long  time,  the  king  consented  to  assign  to  them,  for  their 


LECT.  II.  NOTES.  283 

« 

abode  and  protection,  the  city  Avaris,  which  had  then  been  abandoned 
by  the  shepherds.  Now  this  city,  according  to  the  ancient  theology, 
is  the  city  of  Typhon.  Entering  into  this  city,  and  having  it  for  a 
centre  of  their  rebellion,  they  appointed  as  their  prince  one  of  the 
priests  of  the  Heliopolitans,  named  Hosarsiphus,  and  they  took  an 
oath  to  obey  him  in  all  things.  He  gave  them,  first  of  all,  this  law, 
not  to  worship  the  gods,  nor  to  abstain  from  any  of  those  animals 
esteemed  most  sacred  in  Egypt,  but  to  kill  and  destroy  them  all ;  and 
not  to  have  intercourse  with  any  but  those  who  had  taken  the  oath. 
Having  established  these  laws,  and  many  others  exceedingly  contrary 
to  the  Egyptian  customs,  he  commanded  that  many  hands  should  be 
employed  in  repairing  the  walls  of  the  city,  and  that  they  should  make 
themselves  ready  for  war  with  King  Amenophis.  Then,  joining  with 
him  the  other  priests  and  polluted  persons,  he  sent  ambassadors  to  the 
shepherds  who  had  been  driven  out  by  Tethmosis,  to  the  city  called 
Jerusalem.  He  declared  to  them  the  treatment  which  he,  and  those 
who  shared  in  his  dishonor,  had  received,  and  asked  them  to  join  all 
their  forces  in  an  expedition  against  Egypt.  He  promised  first  of  all 
to  lead  them  back  to  Avaris,  their  ancestral  city,  to  furnish  their  army 
abundantly  with  all  things  necessary,  to  fight  for  them,  if  need  should 
require,  and  easily  to  make  the  country  subject  to  them.  The  shep 
herds  were  overjoyed,  and  all  eagerly  sallied  forth,  to  the  number  of 
200,000,  and  soon  came  to  Avaris.  But  Amenophis,  the  king  of 
Egypt,  when  he  was  apprised  of  their  invasion,  was  not  a  little 
troubled,  remembering  the  prediction  of  Amenophis  the  son  of  Paapis. 
And  in  the  first  place  gathering  the  multitude  of  the  Egyptians,  and 
taking  counsel  with  their  rulers,  he  sent  for  the  sacred  animals  that  were 
chiefly  worshipped  in  their  temples  to  be  brought  to  him,  and  com 
manded  the  priests  in  different  places  to  hide  the  images  of  the  gods  as 
securely  as  possible.  His  son  Sethos,  called  also  Barneses,  from  his 
father  Bhampses,  being  a  child  of  five  years  old,  he  consigned  to  his 
friend.  He  then  passed  on  with  the  rest  of  the  Egyptians,  amounting 
to  300,000  men  skilled  in  war.  When  he  met  the  enemy,  however,  he 
did  not  engage  in  battle  with  them,  but,  thinking  that  this  would  be 
to  fight  against  the  gods,  he  turned  back,  and  came  to  Memphis. 
Then  taking  Apis,  and  the  other  sacred  animals  which  had  been  sent 
thither,  he  immediately  departed  into  Ethiopia.  For  the  king  of  the 
Ethiopians  was  under  obligations  to  him  ;  wherefore  he  received  the 


284 


NOTES.  LECT.  II. 


whole  multitude,  and  furnished  them  with  such  necessaries  of  life  as 
the  country  afforded,  and  gave  them  cities  and  villages  sufficient  for 
them  to  dwell  in  during  the  predetermined  period  of  thirteen  years  while 
Amenophis  was  expelled  from  his  kingdom.  He  moreover  put  the 
Ethiopian  army  at  the  service  of  King  Amenophis,  for  the  defence  of 
the  frontiers  of  Egypt.  Thus  far  concerning  the  Ethiopians.  But  the 
Jerusalemites  came  down  with  the  polluted  Egyptians,  and  treated  men 
with  such  impious  cruelty,  that  their  rule  seemed  to  them  who  beheld 
their  impieties  the  very  worst  possible.  Eor  they  not  only  burned 
cities  and  villages,  and  sacrilegiously  abused  the  images  of  the  gods, 
but,  not  content  with  this,  they  used  these  images  in  roasting  the  animals 
that  were  reverenced  as  sacred,  and  compelled  the  priests  to  be  the 
sacrificLTsand  slaughterers  of  these  animals,  and  then  drove  them  naked 
out  of  the  country.  It  is  said  also  that  the  priest  who  gave  them  their 
laws,  and  ordered  their  civil  officers,  who  was  by  birth  a  Heliopolitan, 
named  Osarsiph,  from  Osiris,  the  god  of  Heliopolis,  when  he  had  joined 
himself  to  this  race  of  men,  changed  his  name,  and  was  called  Moses.' 
"  Such  things  the  Egyptians  relate  concerning  the  Jews,  and  many 
more  which  I  pass  over  for  the  sake  of  brevity.  And  Manetho  says 
again,  that  after  these  things  Amenophis  came  from  Ethiopia  with  a 
great  force,  and  his  son  Rhampses  with  him,  he  also  having  an  army ; 
and  the  two  together,  engaging  in  battle  with  the  shepherds  and  the 
polluted  men,  defeated  them,  and  having  slain  many,  drove  them  even 
to  the  borders  of  Syria."  (Joseph.  Contra  Apionem,  i.  26,  27.) 

Compare  with  this  the  briefer  account  of  Chseremon,  who  said,  — 
"Isis  appeared  to  Amenophis  in  his  sleep,  and  blamed  him  because 
her  temple  had  been  destroyed  in  the  war.  But  Phritiphantes,  the 
sacred  scribe,  told  him  that  all  cause  of  alarm  would  be  removed,  if 
he  should  purify  Egypt  from  men  who  were  polluted.  Whereupon  he 
gathered  250,000  of  these  obnoxious  persons,  and  banished  them. 
Over  these  were  the  scribes,  Moses  and  Joseph,  who  was  also  a  sacred 
scribe.  Their  Egyptian  names  were,  of  Moses,  Tisithen,  and  of 
Joseph,  Peteseph.  These  came  to  Pelusium,  and  found  there  380,000 
persons,  who  had  been  left  by  Amenophis,  because  he  did  not  wish  to 
bring  them  into  Egypt.  Forming  an  alliance  with  these,  they  marched 
against  Egypt.  But  Amenophis,  without  awaiting  their  attack,  fled 
into  Ethiopia,  leaving  his  wife,  who  was  pregnant.  She  hid  herself  in 
a  certain  cave,  where  she  brought  forth  a  son,  whose  name  was 


LECT.  II.  NOTES.  -So 

Messenes.  He,  after  he  grew  up  to  manhood,  drove  the  Jews,  who 
were  about  200,000,  into  Syria,  and  brought  back  his  father  from 
Ethiopia."  (Joseph.,  1.  s.  c.  ch.  32.) 

NOTE  LXXXH.,  p.  74. 

The  name  Osarsiph,  which,  according  to  Manetho,  was  the  Egyptian 
appellation  of  Moses,  seems  to  be  a  corruption  of  Joseph,  whom  Chsere- 
mon  made  Moses*  companion  and  fellow-helper.  The  statement  that 
Moses  was  "  a  priest  of  Heliopolis"  —  which  was  also  made  by  Apion 
(Josephus,  Contra  Apionem,  ii.  2)  —  is  either  a  perversion  of  the  Scrip 
tural  fact  of  Joseph's  marriage  with  "  the  daughter  of  Potipherah, 
priest  of  On,"  l  or  possibly  an  indication  of  a  fact  not  recorded  in 
Scripture,  that  Moses  gained  his  knowledge  of  the  Egyptian  wisdom 
at  that  seat  of  learning.  The  fear  of  Amenophis  for  his  son's  safety 
recalls  to  our  thoughts  the  last  of  the  plagues :  the  forced  labor  of 
the  Jews  in  the  stone  quarries  is  not  very  different  from  the  compul 
sory  brick-making  ;  the  cry  of  pollution  is  probably  connected  with 
the  earlier  plagues,  or  perhaps  it  is  only  an  exaggeration  of  the  feeling 
which  viewed  "every  shepherd"  as  "an  abomination."  (Gen.  xlvi. 
31.)  The  mention  of  Jerusalem,  or  rather  Salem,  (the  Salemites,)  at 
this  time,  confirms  Gen.  xiv.  18  ;  and  the  occurrence  of  Rameses  as  a 
family  name  in  the  dynasty  harmonizes  with  its  use  as  a  local  designa 
tion.  (Gen.  xlvii.  11 ;  Exod.  i.  11,  and  xii.  37.) 

NOTE  LXXXIIL,  p.  75. 

See  Sir  Charles  Lyell's  Principles  of  Geology,  vol.  i.  p.  240.  "  I  need 
not  dwell,"  he  says,  "  on  the  proofs  of  the  low  antiquity  of  our  species, 
for  it  is  not  controverted  by  any  experienced  geologist ;  indeed,  the  real 
difficulty  consists  in  tracing  back  the  signs  of  man's  existence  on  the 
earth  to  that  comparatively  modern  period  when  species,  now  his  con 
temporaries,  began  to  predominate.  If  there  be  a  difference  of  opinion 
respecting  the  occurrence  in  certain  deposits  of  the  remains  of  man  and 
his  works,  it  is  always  in  reference  to  strata  confessedly  of  the  most  modern 
order;  and  it  is  never  pretended  that  our  race  co-existed  with  assem 
blages  of  animals  and  plants,  of  which  all  or  even  a  great  part  of  the 
species  are  extinct." 

This  remark  will,  I  conceive,  hold  good,  whatever  judgment  is  ulti- 
1  Gen.  xli.  45. 


286  NOTES.  LECT.  II. 

mately  formed  by  science  of  the  results  which  have  been  recently 
obtained  by  Mr.  Homer  in  Egypt,1  by  M.  Boucher  de  Perthes  in 
France,2  and  by  Mr.  Prestwich  and  others  in  our  own  country.  The 
strata  examined  and  said  to  contain  the  most  ancient  human  remains 
hitherto  found,  are  the  alluvium  of  Egypt,  and  the  diluvium  or  "drift" 
of  Europe ;  which  are  both,  geologically,  strata  of  a  comparatively 
modern  origin.  The  rashness  of  the  conclusions  as  to  the  minimum 
antiquity  of  our  race  in  Egypt,  which  Mr.  Homer  drew  from  his 
researches,  has  been  ably  exposed  by  a  writer  in  the  Quarterly  Review, 

(April,  1859,  No.  210,  pp.  419-421.) 

* 

NOTE  LXXXIV.,  p.  75. 

The  researches  and  arguments  of  Blumenbach,  Haller,  Cuvier,  ana, 
above  all,  of  Dr.  Prichard,  (Physical  History  of  Mankind,  vol.  i.  pp. 
114-376,)  have  established  this  point  beyond  all  reasonable  doubt. 
Even  the  author  of  the  Vestiges  of  Creation  admits  "the  result,  on  the 
whole,  of  inquiries  into  what  are  called  the  physical  history  of  man," 
to  be,  "that  conditions  such  as  climate  and  food,  domestication,  and 
perhaps  an  inward  tendency  to  progress  under  tolerably  favorable 
circumstances,  are  sufficient  to  account  for  all  the  outward  peculiarities 
of  form  and  color"  observable  among  mankind.  (Vestiges,  p.  262,  tenth 
edition.) 

NOTE  LXXXV.,  p.  75. 

"Physiological  Ethnology,"  says  Professor  Max  Mullcr,  "has  ac 
counted  for  the  varieties  of  the  human  race,  and  removed  the  barriers 
which  formerly  prevented  us  from  viewing  all  mankind  as  the  members 
of  one  family,  the  offspring  of  one  parent.  The  problem  of  the  variety 
of  language  is  more  difficult,  and  has  still  to  be  solved,  as  we  must 
include  in  our  survey  the  nations  of  America  and  Africa.  But  over 
the  languages  of  the  primitive  Asiatic  Continent  of  Asia  and  Europe 
a  new  light  begins  to  dawn,  which,  in  spite  of  perplexing  appearances, 
reveals  more  and  more  clearly  the  possibility  of  their  common  origin" 
(See  M.  Bunsen's  Philosophy  of  Universal  History,  vol.  i.  p.  474 ;  and 
compare  pp.  478,  479.) 

1  Account  of  some  recent  Researches  near  Cairo,  (first  published  in  the  Philosophical 
Transactions,}  by  Leonard  Homer,  Esq.,  Parts  i.  and  ii.  London,  1855  and  1858. 

2  diitiquites  Celtiques  et  Ante-diluviennes,  par  M.  Boucher  de  Perthes,  Paris,  1847. 


LECT.  H.  NOTES.  287 


NOTE  LXXXVL,  p.  75. 

"It  is  pleasing  to  remark,"  says  Sir  H.  Rawlinson,  speaking  of  the 
different  races  in  Western  Asia,  "that  if  we  were  to  be  guided  by 
the  mere  intersection  of  linguistic  paths,  and  independently  of  all 
reference  to  the  Scriptural  record,  we  should  still  be  led  to  fix  on  the 
plains  of  Shinar,  as  the  focus  from  which  the  various  lines  had  radiated." 
(Journal  of  Royal  Asiatic  Society,  vol.  xv.  part  2,  p.  232.  Compare  the 
statements  of  the  same  writer  in  the  author's  Herodotus,  vol.  i.  p.  586.) 


NOTE  LXXXVIL,  p.  75. 

The  only  case  in  which  we  can  form  a  judgment  of  the  linguistic 
accuracy  of  the  Pentateuch  is  that  of  the  Egyptian  terms,  since  here 
only  have  we  any  sufficient  knowledge  of  the  language  spoken  in  the 
country  at  the  time.  Under  this  head  come  the  following :  — 

1.  Pharaoh,  (riS^&O  as  the  title  of  Egyptian  kings  (Gen.  xii.  15,  xl. 
2  ;  Ex.  i.  11,)  which  has  been  explained  as  Ph-ouro,  "the  king;"  but 
which  is  more  probably  Ph-rah,  "  the  Sun,"  a  title  borne  by  the  Egyp 
tian  monarchs  from  very  early  times.      (Wilkinson,   in  the  author's 
Herodotus,  vol.  ii.  p.  182,  note  1.) 

2.  Potiphar,    (l"|B^t:i&,)  or  Potipherah,    (2nQ^tti5»)  which   is    Pete- 
ph-re,  "belonging  to  the  Sun"  —  a  name  common  upon  the   monu 
ments,  (Pvosellini,  Monumenti  Storici,  i.  117;  Champollion,  Precis,  Table 
Generale,  p.  23,)  and  specially  appropriate  to  a  Priest  of  On,  or  Heli- 
opolis.     Compare  the  name  Peteseph,  "belonging  to  Sob,  (Chronos,)" 
which,   according  to  Chgeremon,  was  the  Egyptian   name  of  Joseph. 
(Supra,  Note  LXXXI.) 

3.  Asenath,  (r^wi*,)  which  is,  according  to  Jablonsky,  (Opuscula,  ii. 
208,)  Asshe-ncith,  "  worshipper  of  Neith,"  or  more  probably,  as  Gese- 
nius   observes,  (Thesaurus,   ad  voc.,)  As-neith,    "  quse  Neithae  (est,)" 
"  belonging  to  Neith."     It  has  been  doubted  whether  Neith  was  wor 
shipped  at  this  early  date  ;  but  she  seems  to  have  been  really  one  of 
the  primitive  deities  of  Lower  Egypt.     (Bunsen,  Egypfs  Place,  vol.  i. 
p.  389.)     Her  name  forms  an  element  in  that  of  Nitocris,  (Neith-akri,) 
a  queen  of  the  sixth  dynasty.     (Wilkinson,  Herodotus,  vol.  ii.  p.  165, 
note  2.) 

4.  Zaphnath-Paaneah,  (TO0D""W&S,)  the  name  which  Pharaoh  gave 


288  NOTES.  LECT.  II. 

to  Joseph,  is  best  explained  through  the  Septuagint  Psoiitho-mphanech, 
which  closely  corresponds  to  the  Coptic  Psont-mfaneh,  "  sustainer  of 
the  age,"  or  as  Jerome  says,  a  little  freely,  "  salvator  mundi."  (See 
Gesenius,  Thesaurus,  p.  1181.)  The  first  two  letters  have  been  trans 
posed  in  the  Hebrew,  either  by  accident,  or  to  suit  Jewish  articulation, 
and  at  the  same  time  to  produce  a  name  significant  to  Jewish  ears. 

5.  Moses  (TO'fa)  was  undoubtedly  an  Egyptian  name,  since  it  was 
selected  by  Pharaoh's  daughter,  (Ex.  ii.  10.)     "We  are  told  that  it  was 
significant,  being  chosen  "  because  she  drew  him  out  of  the  water." 
The  real  etymology  was  long  since  given  fully  by  Josephus,  (Ant.  Jud. 
ii.  9,  §  6,)  partially  by  Philo,  (De  vita  Mosis,  i.  Op.  vol.  ii.  p.  83,)  and 
Clemens  Alexandrinus,  (Strom,  i.  p.  412.)    Josephus  —  "The  Egyptians 
call   water   mo,    and   those   who   are   rescued    from   the  water   uses." 
Philo  —  "  The   Egyptians   call   water    mos."      Clem.    Alex.  —  ««  The 
Egyptians   call   water   moil."      The   last  of  these   forms   is   the   best. 
Moil  is  still  " water"  in  Coptic,  and  the  old  Egyptian  word  —  given 
by  Bunsen  as  muau l  —  was  similar.     According  to  Jablonsky  (Opus- 
cula,  i.  152)  ouske  in  Coptic  is  "to  save."     I  am  not  aware  whether 
this  root  has  been  found  yet  in  the  ancient  Egyptian. 

6.  Besides  these  names,  a  certain  number  of  Egyptian  words  have 
been  detected  in  the  language  of  the  Pentateuch.     Such  are    ^n5<>  (or 
Tin  >    LXX.  «x£'»)  which  Jablonsky  found  to  signify  in  Coptic  "  every 
green  thing  which  is  produced  in  a  pool,"   (Opuscula,  vol.  i.  p.  45  ;) 
perhaps  !~DFl»  (LXX.  0<7?»7,)  the  word  used  both  for  Noah's  Ark,  and 
for  the  small  ark  in  which  Moses  was  placed,  (La  Croze,  Lexicon  Egyp- 
tiacum,  sub  voc. ;)  and  lip<32*»  which  is  explained  from  the  Coptic  as 
au-rek,  "bow  every  one,"  or  ape-rek,  "bow  the  head."     (See  Gesenius, 
Jlcbraisches  und  Chaldaisches  HandwOrtcrbuch,  ad  voc.,  p.  10,  E.  T.,  and 
compare  de  Rossi,  Etym.  Egypt.,  p.  1.) 

The  geographic  accuracy  of  the  Pentateuch  has  been  illustrated  by  a 
number  of  writers.  Dr.  Stanley,  one  of  the  most  recent  and  most  calm- 
judging  of  modern  Oriental  travellers,  observes  with  respect  to  the 
Mosaic  accounts  of  the  Sinaitic  desert  —  "  Even  if  the  precise  route  of 
the  Israelites  were  unknown,  yet  the  peculiar  features  of  the  country 
have  so  much  in  common  that  the  history  would  still  receive  many 
remarkable  illustrations.  .  .  .  The  occasional  springs,  and  wells,  and 

1  Bunsen's  Egypt,  vol.  i.  p.  471,  No.  313. 


LECT.  II.  NOTES.  289 

brooks,  are  in  accordance  with  the  notices  of  the  «  waters '  of  Marah, 
the  «  springs  '  of  Elim,  the  '  brook '  of  Horeb  ;  the  « well '  of  Jethro's 
daughters,  with  its  « troughs '  or  tanks.  The  vegetation  is  still  that 
which  we  should  infer  from  the  Mosaic  history,"  &c.  (Sinai  and  Pales 
tine,  pp.  20,  21 ;  compare  pp.  22,  24,  129,  &c.)  In  the  account  of 
Egypt  the  accuracy  is  seen  not  only  in  the  general  description  of  the 
territory  —  its  rich  meadows  and  corn-lands ;  its  abounding  river, 
edged  with  nags  and  bulrushes,  (Ex.  ii.  3  ;)  its  wealth  of  waters  derived 
therefrom,  "  streams  and  rivers,  and  ponds,  and  pools  of  water,"  (Ex. 
vii.  19;)  its  wheat,  and  rye,  and  barley,  and  flax,  (ib.  ix.  31,  32,)  and 
green  trees  (palm-trees  ?)  yielding  fruit,  (ib.  x.  15;)  but  also  in  the 
names  and  sometimes  in  the  sites  of  towns.  On,  (i^,)  Pithom,  (ch&») 
Harnesses,  (3O£3»)  Zoan,  Cy;!£>)  and  Migdol,  (Vl3->)  which  are  among 
the  few  Egyptian  towns  mentioned  by  Moses,  are  all  well-known  places. 
Of  On,  the  Greek  Heliopolis,  it  is  unnecessary  to  speak.  Pithom  is  the 
Patumus  of  Herodotus,  (ii.  158,)  the  city  of  Thmei,  (Justice,)  called 
"  Thmuin  "  in  the  Itinerary  of  Antonine,  (p.  9.)  Harnesses  is  Beth- 
Rameses,  a  city  of  which  we  have  a  description  in  a  hieratic  papyrus  of 
the  18th  or  19th  dynasty.  (See  Cambridge  Essays,  1858,  Art.  VI. 
p.  254.)  Zoan,  the  Tanis  of  the  LXX.  —  whence  the  »'  Tanitic  nome  " 
of  Herodotus,  (ii.  166,)  and  the  "  Tanitic  mouth  "  of  later  authors,  is 
the  modern  San  or  Zan,  evidently  a  great  town  in  the  time  of  the  Rames- 
sidc  monarchs.  (Wilkinson,  Ancient  Egypt,  i.  p.  449.)  Migdol,  the 
Magdolus  of  Hecatseus,  (Fr.  282,)  retains  its  name  in  the  Itinerary  of 
Antonine,  (p.  10,)  and  appears  in  the  position  assigned  by  Moses,  on 
the  north-east  frontier,  near  Pelusium.  Again,  the  name  by  which 
Egypt  itself  is  designated,  Mizraim,  (Q^2£»)  has  a  peculiar  geographi 
cal  significancy.  The  dual  form  marks  the  two  Egypts —  "  the  upper 
and  the  lower  country " —  as  they  are  termed  in  the  inscriptions.1 
Equally  significant  is  Padan-avam,  (tDlSj-^  B ,)  "  the  plain  Syria  " —  the 
country  stretching  away  from  the  foot  of  the  hills,  (Stanley's  Palestine, 
p.  128,  note  1,)  where  Harran  stood,  which  was  so  different  a  tract  from 
the  mountainous  Syria  west  of  the  Euphrates.  Again,  the  expression, 
"  the  entrance  of  Hamath,"  (Numb.  xiii.  21,)  shows  a  conversance  with 
the  geography  of  Upper  Palestine,  whereof  this  "entrance"  is  so 

1  The  common  hieroglyphic  signs  for  the  whole  of  Kicypt  are  two  crowns,  two  water- 
plants,  or  two  layers  of  earth.  (Lepsius,  Sur  I'dlphabet  Hieroglyphique,  Phmche  I. 
Cronpe  vii.  col.  C. 

25 


290  NOTES.  LECT.  II. 

striking  a  feature,  (Stanley,  p.  399,)  and  with  the  existence  of  Hamath 
at  the  time,  which  may  be  proved  from  the  hieratic  papyri  of  the  period. 
(See  Cambridge  Essays,  1858,  p.  268.)  Some  further  geographical  points 
will  be  touched  in  Note  LXXXIX. 

The  ethological  accuracy  of  the  Pentateuch  as  respects  Oriental  man 
ners  and  customs  generally,  has  never  been  questioned.  The  life  of  the 
Patriarchs  in  Canaan,  the  habits  of  those  who  dwell  in  the  desert,  the 
chiefs  and  followers,  the  tents,  the  wealth  in  cattle,  the  "  sitting  in  the 
door,"  the  salutations  and  obeisances,  the  constant  migrations,  the 
quarrels  for  pasture  and  water,  the  marriages  with  near  relatives, 
the  drawing  of  water  from  the  wells  by  the  young  maidens,  the  troughs 
for  the  camels,  the  stone  on  the  well's  mouth,  the  camels  kneeling  with 
their  burdens  and  waiting  patiently  till  the  troughs  are  full,  the  pur 
chase  by  weight  of  silver,  the  oaths  accompanied  by  peculiar  ceremonies, 
the  ox  unmuzzled  as  he  treads  out  the  corn,  —  these  and  ten  thousand 
similar  traits  are  so  true  to  nature  and  to  fact,  even  at  the  present  day, 
(for  the  East  changes  but  little.)  that  travellers  universally  come  back 
from  Syria  deeply  and  abidingly  impressed  with  the  reality  and  truth 
fulness  of  the  Pentateuch  in  all  that  respects  Eastern  manners.  Ration 
alism,  in  order  to  meet  in  any  degree  the  weight  of  this  argument,  is 
forced  to  betake  itself  to  Egypt,  where  an  artificial  system  existed  in 
the  time  of  Moses  which  has  now  completely  passed  away.  Von  Bohlen 
maintains  that  in  many  respects  the  author  of  the  Pentateuch  shows  a 
want  of  acquaintance  with  the  customs  of  Egypt,  e.  g.,  in  his  mention 
of  eunuchs  at  the  Egyptian  court,  (Commentar,  p.  360,)  in  his  represen 
tation  of  Pharaoh's  daughter  as  bathing  in  the  Nile,  (ibid.,)  and  in  his 
making  wine  a  product  of  Egypt,  (p.  374.)  The  objections  taken  are 
not  particularly  happy.  (See  Kosellini  as  quoted  by  Hengstenberg, 
JEgypten  und  Mose,  p.  23  ;  and  Wilkinson,  Ancient  Egyptians,  vol.  iii. 
p.  389 ;  Herodotus,  vol.  ii.  p.  126.)  Were  they  more  important,  they 
would  be  greatly  outweighed  by  the  multitude  of  passages  where  an 
intimate  acquaintance  with  Ancient  Egypt  may  be  discerned.  The 
position  of  the  Egyptians  with  respect  to  foreigners  —  their  separation 
from  them,  yet  their  allowance  of  them  in  their  country,  their  special 
hatred  of  shepherds,  the  suspicion  of  strangers  from  Palestine  as  spies  — 
their  internal  government,  its  settled  character,  the  power  of  the  King, 
the  influence  of  the  Priests,  the  great  works,  the  employment  of  for 
eigners  in  their  construction,  the  use  of  bricks,  (cf.  Herod,  ii.  136,  with 


LECT.  II.  NOTES.  291 

Wilkinson's  note  ad  loc.,)  and  of  bricks  with  straw  in  them,  (Wilkin 
son,  1.  s.  c.  and  Camb.  Essays,  1858,  p.  259,)  the  taskmasters,  the 
embalming  of  dead  bodies,  the  consequent  importation  of  spices,  (Gen. 
xxxvii.  25,)  the  violent  mournings,  (Herod,  ii.  85,)  the  dissoluteness 
of  the  women,  (ibid.  ii.  Ill  ;  Camb.  Essays,  1858,  p.  234,)  the  fighting 
with  horses  and  chariots,  (Wilkinson  on  Herod,  ii.  108  ;  Camb.  Essays, 
1858,  pp.  240,  241,)  — these  are  a  few  out  of  the  many  points  which 
might  be  noted  marking  an  intimate  knowledge  of  Egyptian  manners 
and  customs  on  the  part  of  the  author  of  the  Pentateuch.  (For  a  full 
treatment  of  the  question,  see  the  work  of  Hengstenberg  quoted  above, 
which  exhibits  a  very  good  acquaintance  with  the  works  of  modern 
Egyptologers.) 

NOTE  LXXXYHI.,  p.  76. 

The  uncertainty  of  geographers  as  to  the  sites  of  these  cities,  and  the 
weak  grounds  upon  which  identifications  of  them  were  attempted,  will 
be  seen  by  reference  even  to  works  so  recent  as  Winer's  RealwOrterbuch 
(1848)  and  Kitto's  Biblical  Cyclopedia,  (1856.)  Ur  was  thought  by 
some  (Hitter,  Kitto)  to  be  Orfa  or  Edessa  (so  even  Bunsen,  Egypt,  vol. 
iii.  p.  366  ;)  which  according  to  others  (Winer)  was  Erech :  Calneh 
was  supposed  to  be  Ctesiphon,  Calah  to  be  Holwan ;  Ellasar,  which 
should  have  been  in  Lower  Babylonia,  was  thought  to  be  the  Larissa 
of  Xenophon,  on  the  middle  Tigris ;  while  Accad  was  either  Sacada  or 
Nisibis.  Any  slight  resemblance  of  name — any  late  authority  of  a 
Talmudical  or  Arabic  writer  —  was  caught  at,  in  order  to  fix  what  the 
scanty  remains  of  primeval  geography  left  completely  unsettled. 


NOTE  LXXXIX.,  p.  76. 

The  following  sites  seem  to  have  been  determined  beyond  all  rea 
sonable  doubt  by  the  Babylonian  and  Assyrian  Inscriptions  :  — 

1.  Ur  of  the  Chaldees,  at  Mugheir,  on  the  right  bank  of  the  Eu 
phrates,  not  very  far  above  its  junction  with  the  Skat-el- Hie.     This  is 
the  true  Chaldsea  of  Scripture  and  of  History,  an  Armenian  Chaldaea 
being  a  fiction  of  the  Greeks. 

2.  Calah  at  Nimriid,  on  the  left  bank  of  the  Tigris,  a  little  above  its 
junction  with  the  Greater  Zab.     (The  Halah  of  2  Kings  xvii.  6,  is  a 


292  NOTES.  LECT.  II. 

different  place.)  The  province  in  which  it  stands  long  continued  to  be 
called  Calachene,  (Strab.  xvi.  1,  §  1  ;  Ptol.  vi.  1.) 

3.  Erech  at  Warka,  (the  Greek  'On^vrt,~)  on  the  left  bank  of  the 
Euphrates,  and  at  some  distance  from  the  river,  about  35  miles  N.  "W. 
of  Ur. 

The  following  identifications,  if  not  certain,  are  at  least  highly  prob 
able:  —  1.  Resen  with  Kileh-Sherghdtt  on  the  right  bank  of  the  Tigris, 
not  very  far  from  its  junction  with  the  Lesser  Zab.  2.  Accad  with  a 
town  in  Lower  Babylonia,  called  Kinzi  Accad  in  the  Inscriptions,  the 
site  of  which  is  not  yet  determined.  3.  Ellasar  with  Senkereh,  15 
miles  S.  E.  of  Warka,  on  the  same  side  of  the  Euphrates.  4.  Calneh 
with  Niffer,  in  the  same  tract  with  Senkereh  and  Warka,  but  much 
nearer  Babylon,  and  about  midway  between  the  two  streams.  (See  the 
author's  Herodotus,  vol.  i.  pp.  313,  447,  592,  &c.) 

For  a  description  of  the  ruins  of  Ur  and  Erech,  see  Mr.  Loftus'-s 
Chaldeea  and  Susiana,  pp.  128-134,  and  162  et  seqq. ;  for  those  of 
Calah,  see  Mr.  Layard's  Nineveh  and  its  Remains,  ch.  ii.  et  seqq. ; 
some  account  is  given  of  Resen  (Kileh-Sherghdf)  in  the  same  work,  ch, 
xii. ;  and  of  Calneh  (Niffer)  in  the  same  writer's  Nineveh  and  Babylon, 
ch.  xxiv. 

NOTE  XC.,  p.  76. 

See  the  account  which  Mr.  Cyril  Graham  has  given  of  his  travels  in 
this  region  in  the  Cambridge  Essays  for  1858,  pp.  157-162.  Compare 
Dr.  Stanley's  Sinai  and  Palestine,  p.  118. 

NOTE  XCL,  p.  76. 

See  Commander  Lynch' s  Narrative  of  the  United  States  Expedition  to 
the  River  Jordan,  and  also  his  Official  Report.  Compare  the  Journal 
of  the  Geographical  Society,  vol.  xviii.  Artt.  8,  9,  and  10,  and  vol. 
xx.  Art.  15.  For  a  summary  of  the  facts,  see  Stanley's  Sinai  and 
Palestine,  pp.  276-279,  and  the  Essays  appended  to  the  first  volume  of 
the  author's  Herodotus,  Essay  ix.  pp.  548,  549.  Commander  Lynch 
gives  the  following  account  of  the  impression  made  upon  himself  and 
his  friends  by  their  careful  examination  of  the  River  and  of  the  Lake 
in  which  it  ends :  —  "  It  is  for  the  learned  to  comment  on  the  facts 
which  we  have  laboriously  collected.  Upon  ourselves,  the  result  is  a 


LECT.  III.  NOTES.  293 

decided  one.  "We  entered  upon  this  sea  with  conflicting  opinions.  One 
of  the  party  was  sceptical,  and  another,  I  think,  a  professed  unbe 
liever  of  the  Mosaic  account.  After  twenty-two  days'  close  investi 
gation,  if  I  am  not  mistaken,  we  were  unanimous  in  the  conviction  of  the 
truth  of  the  Scriptural  account  of  the  destruction  of  the  cities  of  the 
plain."  (Narrative,  ch.  xvii.  p.  253.) 


LECTURE    III. 

NOTE  L,  p.  79. 

See  Ko'nig,  Alttestament.  Studien,  p.  63,  et  seqq. ;  Jahn,  Einleitung, 
ii.  1,  p.  160 ;  and  Home's  Introduction,  vol.  v.  p.  35. 

NOTE  II.,  p.  79. 

See  Carpzov,  Jntroductio  ad  libros  Canonicos  Veteris  Testamenti,  part 
i.  p.  213,  who  gives  the  following  list  of  writers  by  whom  this  view 
has  been  taken  :  Theodoret,  Procopius,  Gregory  the  Great,  Isidore, 
Eucherius,  among  the  ancients;  among  the  moderns,  "Walther,  Calo- 
vius,  Hugo,  De  Lyra,  Cajetan,  Vatable,  Sixtus  Sinensis,  Sanctius,  Se- 
rarius,  and  Cornelius  a  Lapide." 

NOTE  III.,  p.  79. 

There  is  no  reference  to  the  Book  of  Joshua  as  the  work  of  Joshita  in 
Scripture.  It  is  first  assigned  to  him  in  the  Talmud.  The  Fathers  are 
divided  in  opinion  as  to  its  authorship.  Athanasius,  for  instance, 
includes  it  among  the  books  "not  written  by  the  persons  whose  names 
they  bear  and  of  whom  they  treat."  (Synops.  S.  S.  §  10 ;  Opera,  vol. 
ii.  p.  139,  B.) 

NOTE  IV.,  p.  79. 

See  the  summary  of  the  arguments  in  Keil's  Commentar  uber  d.  Bitch 
Josua,  Einleitung,  §  3,  p.  xlvii.  Keil's  conclusion  is,  "  that  the  histor 
ical  references  and  the  peculiarity  of  style  completely  disprove  the 

25* 


294  NOTES.  LECT.  III. 

supposition  that  the  Book  of  Joshua  was  written  during  the  captivity  ; 
that  they  do  not  point  to  the  times  of  Samuel,  or  Saul,  or  David,  as 
the  date  of  its  composition,  but  rather  to  those  after  Joshua,  and  within 
a  generation  of  his  death.  Who  then,"  he  asks,  "  was  the  author  ? 
Most  probably  one  of  the  elders,  who  lived  for  some  time  after  Joshua, 
and  who  had  seen  all  the  works  of  Jehovah  which  he  did  for  Israel, 
occupied  himself  at  the  close  of  his  life  with  writing  down,  partly  from 
recollection,  partly  from  contemporary  documents  and  other  written 
notices,  the  things  which  he  had  himself  witnessed,  and  thus  composed 
the  work  which  we  possess  under  the  name  of  Joshua."  1  I  should  be 
disposed  to  acquiesce  in  this  view. 

NOTE  V.,  p.  81. 

De  Wette  boldly  denies  this.  "  The  book,"  he  says,  "  nowhere  con 
tains  any  separate  contemporary  documents,"  (nicht  einmal  einzelne 
gleichzeitige  Bestandtheile  enthalt  es.  Einkitung,  §  169,  p.  213.)  But 
Rosenmtlller,  Jahn,  and  others,  seem  to  have  reason  on  their  side  when 
they  urge,  that  the  accounts  of  the  boundaries  of  the  tribes,  (xv. 
21-62  ;  xviii.  21-28  ;  xix.  1-48,)  and  of  the  cities  of  the  Levites,  (xxi. 
13-40,)  have  all  the  appearance  of  such  documents.  Such  a  document 
is  also,  as  it  seems  to  me,  the  list  of  slaughtered  kings  in  chapter  xii., 
(verses  9-24.)  It  appears  by  ch.  xviii.  1-10,  and  xxiv.  26,  that  such 
records  were  in  use  at  the  time  ;  and  it  is  a  reasonable  supposition  that 
they  formed  the  basis  upon  which  the  author,  who  quotes  them,  com 
posed  his  work.  Eichhorn  observed  long  ago  —  "  The  account  of  the 
division  of  the  land  bears  in  many  places  the  marks  of  &  protocol,  which 
from  its  very  nature  never  gives  at  once  a  brief  sketch  of  the  whole 
arrangement,  but  describes  its  gradual  progress,  and  relates,  one  after 
another,  all  the  alterations,  improvements,  and  additions,  that  were 
made  from  time  to  time."  (Einleifuny,  vol.  iii.  p.  365.)  Keil  remarks 
recently  —  "  When  we  come  to  the  second  part  of  the  book,  and  observe 
the  things  of  which  it  particularly  treats  ;  how  the  history  which  it 
contains  of  the  division  of  Canaan  amongst  the  tribes  is  accompanied 
with  full  descriptions  of  the  boundaries  of  the  territory  of  each  tribe, 
with  catalogues  of  cities,  and  so  on,  we  are  necessarily  led  to  the 

1  In  the  quotations  from  Professor  Keil's  learned  and  sensible  work,  I  follow  tho 
Translation  of  Mr.  J.  Martin,  which  forms  the  fourteenth  volume  of  Clark's  Foreign 
Theological  Libraj-y.  \PW  Series,  (Edinburgh,  1&57.) 


LECT.  III.  NOTES.  295 

conclusion,  that  the  writer  availed  himself  of  written  records,  if  not  of 
official  documents."  (Commentary  Einleitung,  §  4  ;  p.  47,  E.  T.)  Cora- 
pare  Home,  Introduction,  vol.  v.  pp.  36,  37. 

NOTE  VI.,  p.  81. 

See  Carpzov,  Introductio  ad  Libros  Canonicos  Veteris  Testamenti,  p. 
172,  et  seqq. ;  and  compare  the  quotation  from  Baba-Bathra  in  The 
odore  Parker's  Translation  of  De  Wette,  vol.  i.  p.  31.  See  also  Home's 
Introduction,  vol.  v.  p.  42. 

NOTE  VH.,  p.  81. 

Compare  Judges  i.  21  with  2  Sam.  v.  6-9.  This  passage,  it  is  ad 
mitted,  "  seems  to  belong  to  the  time  of  David."  (Parker's  De  Wette, 
vol.  i.  p.  206.) 

NOTE  VIIL,  p.  81. 

The  chronology  of  the  Book  of  Judges  is  involved  in  great  uncer 
tainty.  Several  periods  are  unestimated,  as  the  time  between  the  death 
of  Joshua  and  the  first  servitude,  the  judgeship  of  Shamgar,  and  some 
portion  of  the  reign  of  Abimelech.  The  servitudes  added  together 
occupy  111  years,  and  the  periods  during  which  the  land  was  at  rest  or 
under  Judges  occupy  apparently  299  years,  or  if  Samson's  judgeship 
be  included  in  the  last  servitude,  (Jud.  xv.  20,)  279  years.  The  total  is 
thus  410,  or  390. T  But  in  2  Kings  vi.  1,  the  entire  period  between  the 
Exodus  and  the  Dedication  of  the  Temple  is  declared  to  have  been  no 
more  than  480  years.  Now  if  we  take  the  lower  of  the  two  numbers 
derivable  from  Judges,  and  add  the  sojourn  in  the  wilderness,  (40 
years,)  the  time  of  Joshua's  judgeship,  (say  20  years,)  the  interval 
between  Joshua's  death  and  the  1st  servitude,  (say  5  years,)  the  judge- 
ships  of  Eli,  (40  years,)  and  of  Samuel,  (more  than  20  years,  1  Sam. 
vii.  2,)  the  reigns  of  Saul,  (40  years,)  of  David,  (40  years,)  and  the 
three  years  of  Solomon's  reign  before  the  Dedication,  we  obtain  the 
result  of  (390  +  40  +  20  -f  5  -f-  40  -4-  20  -f-  40  -f-  40  -f  3  =  )  598  years, 
or  more  than  a  century  beyond  the  estimate  in  Kings.  It  is  therefore 

1  With  this  nearly  agrees  St.  Paul's  estimate  of  450  years  from  the  division  of  the 
land  by  lot  to  Samuel  the  prophet,  (Acts  xiii.  20;)  for  390  +  40  (the  time  of  Eli's  judge- 
ship)  -f  20  (a  not  improbable  estimate  for  the  time  between  the  death  of  Moses  and  the 
1st  Servitude)  -=  450  years. 


296  NOTES.  LECT.  III. 

thought  that  the  period  of  the  Judges  must  be  reduced  ;  and  the  term 
ordinarily  assigned  to  them,  exclusive  of  Eli  and  Samuel,  is  from  300 
to  350  years.  (See  the  marginal  dates  in  the  English  Bible,  and  com 
pare  Clinton,  Fasti  Hellenici,  vol.  i.  p.  313,  note  n.)  M.  Bunsen,  with 
his  usual  boldness,  reduces  the  time  still  further,  making  the  period 
from  the  death  of  Joshua  to  that  of  Samson  no  more  than  173  years. 
(See  his  Egypt,  vol.  iii.  p.  288.)  This  is  effected  by  giving  Othniel  and 
Deborah  8  years  each  instead  of  40,  by  reducing  the  time  between  the 
2d  and  3d  servitudes  from  80  years  to  7,  by  shortening  Gideon's  pres 
idency  from  40  years  to  10,  and  by  regarding  the  line  of  Judges  from 
Tola  to  Abdon  as  double,  whereby  94  years  are  compressed  into  48  ! 
If  chronology  be  treated  in  this  spirit,  it  is  to  be  feared  that  it  will 
shortly  come  to  be  regarded  pretty  nearly  in  the  same  light  as  the 
etymology  of  the  last  century,  in  which,  it  was  said,  ' '  Vowels  are  good 
for  nothing,  and  consonants  of  small  account."  — 

NOTE  IX.,  p.  82. 

Jahn,  Einleitung,  §  46,  vol.  ii.  p.  232,  et  seqq.  Herbst,  Einleitung, 
vol.  ii.  p.  139,  et  seqq.  ;  Graf,  Dissertatio  de  librorum  Samuelis  et  Regum 
compositions,  &c.  A  good  refutation  of  Jahn's  theory  will  be  found  in 
Kitto's  Cyclopaedia,  in  the  article  on  the  "  Books  of  Samuel,"  vol.  ii.  p. 
685.) 

NOTE  X.,  p.  82. 

See  Carpzov,  Introductio,  &c.,  p.  213.  Modern  critics  mostly  take  the 
view  that  the  Books  of  Samuel  were  merely  founded  on  these  doc 
uments.  (See  Havernick,  Einleitung,  §  161  ;  Stuart,  History  of  the  Old 
Testament  Canon,  §  6,  p.  134  ;  Rev.  J.  Eadie  in  Kitto's  Cyclopedia,  vol. 
ii.  p.  684  ;  &c.)  Home,  however,  with  Carpzov  (p.  215)  and  Span- 
hcim,  (Opera,  vol.  i.  p.  367,)  holds  to  the  ancient  view.  (See  his 
Introduction,  vol.  v.  p.  48.)  The  difference  between  the  two  views  is 
not  great. 

NOTE  XI.,  p.  83. 

Ahijah  the  Shilonite  is  mentioned  as  a  contemporary  of  Solomon 
in  1  Kings  xi.  29.  As  the  visions  of  Iddo  the  seer  were  "  against  Jer 
oboam  the  son  of  Nebat,"  he  must  have  been,  at  the  latest,  contempo 
rary  with  Solomon's  successor. 


LECT.  III. 


NOTES 


297 


NOTE  XH.,  p.  84. 

De  "Wette  says  correctly  —  ' '  The  history  of  David,  contained  in 
1  Chron.  x.-xxix.,  is  in  parts  entirely  consistent  with  that  in  the 
books  of  Samuel ;  but  it  is  distinguished  from  that  by  having  several 
accounts  peculiar  to  itself,  and  especially  by  its  Levitical  accounts." 
(Einleitung,  $  188,  p.  241  ;  vol.  ii.  p.  261,  of  Parker's  Translation.') 
Such  accounts  are  particularly  the  following —  1.  The  lists  of  those 
who  joined  David  at  Ziklag  and  at  Hebron,  (ch.  xii.)  2.  David's 
imstructions  to  Solomon  and  the  princes  with  regard  to  the  temple, 
(ch.  xxii.  and  ch.  xxviii.)  3.  His  offerings  and  those  of  the  people, 
(ch.  xxix.  1-9.)  4.  His  thanksgiving,  and  prayer,  (ibid.  10-19.)  5.  His 
great  sacrifice  and  installing  of  Solomon  as  king  for  the  second  time, 
(ibid.  20-25.)  And,  6.  The  lists  of  the  Levites,  Priests,  singers,  por 
ters,  captains,  &c.,  as  made  out  or  appointed  by  David,  (chs.  xxii.- 
xxvii.)  The  remainder  of  the  first  book  of  Chronicles  follows  Samuel 
closely,  in  most  passages  almost  to  the  letter  ;  e.  g. 


1  CHRON.  x.  1-10. 

Now  the  Philistines  fought  a- 
gainst  Israel ;  and  the  men  of  Is 
rael  fled  from  before  the  Philis 
tines,  and  fell  down  slain  in  mount 
Gilboa.  And  the  Philistines  fol 
lowed  hard  after  Saul,  and  after 
his  sons  ;  and  the  Philistines  slew 
Jonathan,  and  Abinadab,  and  Mal- 
chi-shua,  the  sons  of  Saul.  And 
the  battle  went  sore  against  Saul, 
and  the  archers  hit  him,  and  he 
was  wounded  of  the  archers,  &c., 
&c. 


1  SAM.  xxxi.  1-10. 

Now  the  Philistines  fought  a- 
gainst  Israel :  and  the  men  of  Is 
rael  fled  from  before  the  Philis 
tines,  and  fell  down  slain  in  mount 
Gilboa.  And  the  Philistines  fol 
lowed  hard  upon  Saul  and  upon 
his  sons  ;  and  the  Philistines  slew 
Jonathan,  and  Abinadab,  and  Mel- 
chi-shua,  Saul's  sons.  And  the 
battle  went  sore  against  Saul,  and 
the  archers  hit  him  ;  and  he  was 
sore  wounded  of  the  archers,  &c., 
&c. 


NOTE  Xm.,  p.  84. 

That  the  seventy-eighth  Psalm  is  a  work  of  David's  time,  is  apparent 
from  its  bringing  the  history  down  to  him,  and  then  closing  abruptly. 
The  title,  "  Maschil  of  Asaph,"  is  an  external  confirmation  of  this  view. 


298  NOTES.  LECT.  HI. 

Even  De  "Wette  appears  to  allow  that  Asaph  was  the  author.  (Einlei- 
tung,  §  271,  p.  366.)  In  this  Psalm  are  mentioned  the  following  his 
torical  facts  :  (1.)  The  giving  of  the  law  by  Jehovah,  (verse  5 ;)  (2.) 
The  command  that  it  should  be  made  known  by  fathers  to  their  chil 
dren,  (verses  5,  6 ;  compare  Deut.  iv.  9,  &c. ;)  (3.)  the  miracles 
wrought  in  Egypt,  (verse  12  ;)  (4.)  the  turning  of  the  rivers,  and  (5.) 
other  waters,  into  blood,  (verse  44 ;)  (6.)  the  plague  of  flies,  (v.  45  ;) 
(7.)  of  frogs,  (ib. ;)  (8.)  of  locusts,  (v.  46;)  (9.)  of  hail,  (v.  47  ;)  (10.) 
the  destruction  by  the  hail  of  cattle  as  well  as  trees,  (v.  48  ;)  (11.)  the 
death  of  the  first-born,  (v.  51 ;)  (12.)  the  employment  of  angels  in  this 
destruction,  (v.  49;)  (13.)  the  divine  leading  of  the  Israelites  out  of 
Egypt,  (v.  52  ;)  (14.)  the  pillar  of  cloud  (15.)  by  day,  (v.  14 ;)  (16.) 
the  pillar  of  fire  (17.)  by  night,  (ibid. ;)  (18.)  the  division  of  the  Red 
Sea,  (v.  13  ;)  (19.)  the  standing  of  the  water  in  a  heap,  (ibid. ;  com 
pare  Ex.  xv.  8 ;)  (20.)  the  divine  guidance  of  the  Israelites  through 
the  sea,  (v.  53  ;)  (21.)  the  overwhelming  of  the  Egyptians,  (ib. ;)  (22.) 
the  frequent  murmuring  in  the  wilderness,  (verses  17-20 ;)  (23.)  the 
bringing  forth  of  water  from  the  rock,  (v.  15  ;)  (24.)  in  vast  abun 
dance,  (v.  16;)  (25.)  the  asking  for  meat,  (v.  18  ;)  (26.)  the  kindling 
of  a  fire  against  the  people,  (v.  21 ;  compare  Numb.  xi.  1 ;)  (27.)  the 
manna,  (v.  24 ;)  (28.)  its  coming  down  from  heaven,  (v.  23  ;  compare 
Ex.  xvi.  4  ;)  (29.)  the  ampleness  of  the  supply,  (v.  25 ;)  (30.)  the  giv 
ing  of  quails,  (v.  27;)  (31.)  which  were  brought  by  a  wind,  (v.  26; 
compare  Numb.  xi.  30,)  (32.)  and  let  fall  "round  about  their  habita 
tion,"  (v.  28;  compare  Numb.  xi.  31;)  (33.)  the  destructive  plague 
which  followed,  (v.  31,)  (34.)  ''while  the  meat  was  yet  in  their 
mouths,"  (v.  30 ;  compare  Numb.  xi.  33  ;)  (35.)  the  various  further 
provocations,  (vv.  32,  37,  &c. ;)  (36.)  the  punishment  by  "consuming 
their  days"  in  the  wilderness,  (v.  33  ;)  (37.)  the  mercy  of  God  in  "  not 
stirring  up  all  his  wrath,"  (v.  38  ;)  (38.)  the  frequent  repentances  after 
punishment,  and  frequent  relapses,  (w.  34-42 ;)  (39.)  the  divine  con 
duct  to  the  border  of  the  Holy  Land,  (v.  54 ;)  (40.)  the  casting  out  of 
the  Heathen  before  them,  (v.  55  ;)  (41.)  the  division  of  the  inheritances, 
(ib. ;)  (42.)  the  cowardice  of  Ephraim,  (v.  9  ;  compare  Josh.  xvi.  10  ; 
Judges  i.  29 ;)  (43.)  the  backsliding  and  idolatry  in  Canaan,  (vv.  56— 
58  ;)  (44.)  the  placing  of  the  tabernacle  at  Shiloh,  (v.  60 ;)  (45.)  its 
capture,  (v.  61 ;)  (46.)  the  great  slaughter  at  the  same  time,  (v.  62  ;) 
(47.)  the  slaughter  of  priests  in  the  battle,  (v.  64 ;)  (48.)  the  punish- 


LECT.  III.  NOTES.  299 

ment  of  the  captors  by  emerods,  (v.  66 ;)  (49.)  the  choice  of  the  terri 
tory  of  Judah  for  the  final  resting-place  of  the  tabernacle,  (v.  68 ;) 
(50.)  the  choice  of  Mount  Zion  as  the  place  where  it  should  be  set  up, 
(ib. ;)  (51.)  the  selection  of  David  to  be  king,  (v.  70  ;)  (52.)  his  being 
taken  «« from  the  sheep-folds,"  (ibid.  ;)  and  (53.)  the  integrity  and 
excellence  of  his  rule,  (v.  72.) 

NOTE  XIY.,  p.  85. 
Stanley's  Sinai  and  Palestine,  pp.  132,  133. 

NOTE  XV.,  p.  85. 

M.  Bunsen  supposes  that  Assyria,  from  the  commencement  of  its 
independence  in  B.  C.  1273,  was  not  only  a  powerful  kingdom,  but  a 
great  empire,  holding  Syria,  Palestine,  and  even  occasionally  Egypt  in 
subjection,  (Erjypt^  vol.  iii.  pp.  269,  289,  &c.)  But  this  view  rests 
entirely  upon  Ctesias,  a  writer  (as  M.  Bunsen  confesses J)  of  very  low 
authority  ;  or  rather  it  rests  upon  an  odd  jumble  between  the  facts  (?) 
of  Ctesias  and  the  dates  of  Herodotus  and  Berosus.  Nothing  is  more 
plain  from  the  Assyrian  inscriptions,  the  authority  of  which  M.  Bunsen 
admits,2  than  the  gradual  rise  of  Assyria  to  power  during  the  520  (526) 
years  assigned  by  Herodotus  to  the  Empire.  Tiglath-Pileser  I.,  whose 
date  is  fixed,  with  a  near  approach  to  certainty,  in  the  latter  part  of  the 
eleventh  century  B.  C.,  gives  a  list  of  his  four  ancestors  and  predeces 
sors  which  must  reach  back  at  least  to  B.  C.  1200,  wherein  he  calls  the 
first  of  them  "the  king  who  first  organized  the  country  of  Assyria  ;" 
the  second  and  third  kings  who  were  "  established  in  the  government 
of  Assyria ;  "  and  the  fourth,  his  father,  "the  subduer  of  foreign  coun 
tries  ;"  while  he  calls  himself  "  the  illustrious  prince  who  has  pursued 
after  the  enemies  of  Asshur  and  has  subjugated  all  the  earth."  Yet  his 
campaigns  are  only  in  the  Kurdish  mountains,  in  Armenia,  Cappadocia, 
and  upper  Syria  about  Carchemish.  He  does  not  penetrate  to  Hamath, 
to  Phoenicia,  or  to  Damascus,  much  less  to  Palestine ;  while  he  con 
stantly  declares  that  he  is  engaged  with  tribes  and  countries  which 
none  of  the  Assyrian  kings  had  ever  before  reached.  (See  the  Great 

1  Egypt,  vol.  iii.  p.  4G3.  2  Ibid.  p.  436. 


300  NOTES.  LECT.  III. 

Inscription,   published  by  the  Royal  Asiatic   Society,1  pp.  22,  24,  34, 
42,  &c.) 

NOTE  XVI.,  p.  85. 

See  Wilkinson  in  the  author's  Herodotus,  vol.  ii.  pp.  374-376.  Com 
pare  Bunsen,  Egypt,  vol.  iii.  pp.  210,  211,  219-221,  &c. 

NOTE  XVII.,  p.  86. 

See  above,  Note  XV.  Chushan-Rishathaim  is  placed  by  most  Bibli 
cal  chronologists  between  B.  C.  1400,  and  B.  C.  1350.  M.  Bunsen 
puts  him  a  century  later.  (Egypt,  vol.  iii.  p.  272.)  Even  according 
to  this  latter  view,  he  preceded  Tiglath-Pileser  I.  by  above  a  century. 

It  is  quite  a  gratuitous  supposition  of  M.  Bunsen's,  that  Chushan- 
Rishathaim  was  "  a  Mesopotamia:!  satrap,"  (1.  s.  c.,)  —  "  the  Assyrian 
satrap  of  Mesopotamia,"  (p.  289.)  Scripture  calls  him  "king;"  and 
besides,  the  cuneiform  monuments  make  it  perfectly  clear  that  Assyria 
did  not  extend  her  dominion  to  Aram-Naharaim  (the  Aramaic  portion 
of  Mesopotamia,  or  the  country  between  the  Khabour  and  the  Eu 
phrates)  till  the  middle  of  the  .twelfth  century.  M.  Bunsen  says, 
•'  There  can  never  have  been  an  empire  in  Eastern  Syria  coexistent  with 
Assyria  and  Babylonia,"  (p.  293.)  Why  can  there  not  ?  If  the  Assyr 
ian  and  Babylonian  kingdoms  of  the  early  period  be  rightly  appre 
hended,  there  is  no  more  difficulty  in  supposing  a  powerful  Aramaean 
state  in  Western  Mesopotamia,  than  in  imagining  the  country  divided 
up,  as  we  must  otherwise  regard  it,  among  a  "number  of  petty  princi 
palities.  Chushan-Rishathaim,  however,  it  is  to  be  observed,  reigned 
probably  before  the  Assyrian  independence  was  established. 

NOTE  XVIIL,  p.  86. 

Moses  says,  "When  he  (i.  e.  Joshua)  was  destroying  the  Canaanites, 
some  fled  to  Agra,  and  sought  Tharsis  in  ships.  This  appears  from  an 
inscription,  carved  on  pillars  in  Africa,  which  is  extant  even  in  our 
own  time,  and  is  of  this  purport :  « We,  the  chiefs  of  the  Canaanites, 
fleeing  from  Joshua  the  Robber,  have  come  hither  to  dwell.' "  Hist. 
Armen.)  i.  18. 

1  Printed  by  J.  W.  Parker,  West  Strand,  London,  1857. 


LECT.  IIL  NOTES.  301 


NOTE  XIX.,  p.  86. 

Procopius  expresses  himself  as  follows.  Having  mentioned  Tigisis, 
(Tangiers,)  a  city  of  Numidia,  he  proceeds — "  Where  there  are  two 
columns,  made  of  white  stone,  near  the  great  fountain,  having  carved 
upon  them  Phoenician  letters,  which  read  thus  in  the  language  of  the 
Phoenicians :  —  '  We  are  they  who  fled  from  the  face  of  Joshua  the  Rob 
ber,  the  son  of  Nun.'  "  (De  Betto  Vandalico,  ii.  10.)  This  is  clearly 
the  language  of  an  eye-witness.  Procopius,  it  must  be  remembered, 
had  accompanied  Belisarius  to  Africa. 

NOTE  XX.,  p.  86. 

(Suidas  ad  voc.  Xaraav  —  Canaan.)  "And  there  are  up  to  the  present 
time  such  slabs  in  Numidia,  containing  the  following  inscription :  — « We 
are  Canaanites.  whom  Joshua  the  Robber  drove  out.'  " 

NOTE  XXL  p.  87. 

Keil,  Commentar  Uber  d.  Buck  Josua,  Einleitung,  $  4,  p.  li. ;  p.  51, 
E.  T. 

NOTE  XXII.,  p.  87. 

Mr.  Kenrick,  who  admits  the  existence  of  an  inscription  supposed  to 
have  the  meaning  given  to  it  by  the  writers  above  quoted,  decides  that 
the  inscription  must  have  been  mistranslated.  (Phoenicia,  p.  68.)  He 
remarks  that  the  explanations  of  the  hieroglyphical  and  cuneiform  in 
scriptions  which  were  furnished  by  those  who  professed  to  understand 
them  to  the  inquisitive  Greeks,  read  us  a  lesson  of  distrust ;  and  suggests 
that  a  monument  of  the  time  of  Joshua  would  have  been  unintelligible 
even  to  learned  archaeologists  in  the  days  of  Justinian.  But  the  monu 
ment  may  have  been  national  and  genuine  without  its  dating  from  with 
in  a  thousand  years  of  the  time  of  Joshua ;  and  if  the  cuneiform  and 
hieroglyphical  inscriptions  were  not  accurately  rendered  to  the  Greeks, 
it  was  less  through  ignorance  than  through  malice  that  they  were  per 
verted.  In  this  case  the  translation  given  by  the  natives  is  clearly  an 
honest  one ;  and  its  peculiarities  seem  to  me  in  its  favor.  The  Arama- 
ism,  "  I-/.  nnr>(i(!>Trov," '  is  admitted  to  be  "  a  plausible  argument  for  the 

1  From  the  fcce. 

26 


302  NOTES.  LECT.  311. 

correctness  of  the  interpretation,"  (Kenrick,  1.  e.  c.)  The  form  of  the 
inscription,  in  which  certain  persons,  not  named  or  described,  speak  in 
the  first  person  plural,  which  is  said  to  be  "  wholly  unlike  that  of  genu 
ine  lapidary  documents,"  (Kenrick,  p.  67,)  is  no  doubt  unusual ;  but 
as  certainly  it  is  not  impossible.  The  early  cuneiform  documents  are 
commonly  in  the  first  person.  And  if  the  inscription  were  set  up  in  a 
public  place  in  Tingis,  it  would  be  sufficiently  evident  that  by  "we  " 
was  meant  the  people  of  the  city.  Besides,  we  are  not  sure  that  this 
was  the  whole  of  the  inscription.  The  authors  who  report  it  are  only 
concerned  with  a  particular  passage.  There  may  have  been  a  context, 
which  would  have  taken  away  all  appearance  of  harshness  and  abrupt 
ness  from  the  record. 

NOTE  XXIII.  p.  87. 

Very  few  Phoenician  inscriptions  have  been  found  in  Africa  of  a  later 
date  than  the  age  of  Augustus.  (See  Gesenius's  Monumenta  Scriptures 
Linguaque  Phoenicia,  pp.  13,  313-328.)  The  Latin  language  appears 
to  have  by  that  time  almost  entirely  superseded  the  Carthaginian  for  all 
public  purposes. 

NOTE  XXIV.,  p.  88. 

Herod,  ii.  142.  "  Within  this  period,  they  say  that  the  sun  has  four 
times  departed  from  his  usual  course,  rising  twice  where  he  now  sets, 
and  setting  twice  where  he  now  rises." 

NOTE  XXV.,  p.  88. 

"  When  Herodotus,  the  father  of  profane  history,  tells  us,  from  the 
priests  of  Egypt,  that  their  traditions  had  informed  them,  that  in  very 
remote  ages  the  sun  had  four  times  departed  from  his  regular  course, 
having  twice  set  where  he  ought  to  have  risen,  and  twice  risen  where 
he  ought  to  have  set,  —  it  is  impossible  to  read  this  most  singular  tradi 
tion  without  recollecting  the  narrative  in  the  book  of  Joshua,  which 
relates,  « that  the  sun  stood  still  in  the  midst  of  heaven,  and  hastened 
not  to  go  down  about  a  whole  day  ;'  and  the  fact  related  in  the  history 
of  Hezekiah,  « that  the  sun  went  back  ten  degrees  on  the  dial  of  Ahaz.' " 
(Home,  Introduction  to  the  Critical  Study  and  Knowledge  of  Holy  Scrip 
ture,  vol.  i.  p.  176.  Compare  Goguet,  Origines  Legum  et  Artium,  vol. 
iii.  p.  300.) 


LECT.  IIL  NOTES.  303 


NOTE  XXVI.,  p.  88. 

Three  other  explanations  of  the  narrative  in  Joshua  have  been  sug 
gested.  Grotius,  Isaac  Peyrerius,  Spinoza,  and  others,  conjecture  that 
a  miracle  was  wrought,  but  not  an  astronomical  one.  Divine  power 
caused,  they  think,  an  extraordinary  refraction  of  the  sun's  rays,  by 
which  it  continued  to  light  up  the  field  of  battle  long  after  its  disk  had 
sunk  below  the  horizon.  Michaelis,  Schultz,  Hess,  and  Dathe  believe 
that  nothing  strange  took  place  with  regard  to  the  sun,  but  that  it  con 
tinued  to  lighten  all  night,  in  consequence  of  which  the  Israelites  were 
able  to  continue  the  pursuit.  Finally,  Keil  has  suggested  that  nothing 
marvellous  or  out  of  the  common  course  is  intended  in  the  narrative. 
The  words  of  Joshua,  "  Sun,  stand  thou  still,"  &c.,  (or  "  Sun,  wait 
them,"  as  he  translates  it,)  were,  he  thinks,  spoken  in  the  morning  ;  and 
the  prayer  was  simply  that  the  sun  might  not  set  till  the  people  had 
avenged  themselves  upon  their  enemies.  The  whole  passage  from  verse 
12  to  verse  15  inclusive,  he  considers  to  be  quoted  from  the  poem 
known  as  "the  book  of  Jasher;"  and  therefore  he  feels  justified  in 
explaining  its  language  poetically:  "If  we  had  had  before  us  simple 
prose  or  the  words  of  the  historian  himself,"  it  would  have  been  neces 
sary  to  admit  that  the  day  was  miraculously  lengthened.  But  the 
words  of  a  poet  must  be  understood  poetically.  He  remarks,  that 
there  is  no  reference  to  the  miracle  in  the  rest  of  Scripture  (for  he  fairly 
enough  questions  whether  Hab.  iii.  11  is  such  a  'reference)  —  a  strange 
silence,  if  so  great  a  miracle  as  that  commonly  understood  at  the  pres 
ent  day,  was  really  wrought  on  the  occasion.  These  views  on  the  part 
of  a  learned  Hebraist,  an^l  of  one  who  has  no  prejudice  against  mira 
cles,  eeem  to  deserve  attention.  (See  Keil's  Commentar  liber  d.  Biich 
Josua,  ch.  x.  pp.  177-193  ;  pp.  251-269,  E.  T.) 

NOTE  XXVH.,  p.  89. 

Ap.  Euseb.  Prap.  Ev.  ix.  30.  "After  this  arose  the  prophet  Samuel. 
Then,  by  the  will  of  God,  through  the  agency  of  Samuel,  Saul  was 
chosen  king  ;  and  he  died  after  having  reigned  twenty-one  years.  Then 
David,  his  son,  took  possession  of  the  kingdom,  and  discomfited  the 
Syrians,  who  dwell  by  the  river  Euphrates,  and  subdued  Commagene,  and 
the  Assyrians  and  Phoenicians  of  Galadene." 


304  NOTES.  LECT.  III. 


NOTE  XXVIIL,  p.  89. 

Fragmenta  Hist.  Grcec.,  vol.  iii.  pp.  373,  374,  Fr.  31 :  "  Now  a  great 
while  after  this,  one  of  the  inhabitants  of  the  country,  whose  name  was 
Adad,  reigned  over  Damascus,  and  the  rest  of  Syria  except  Phcenice.  He 
made  war  with  David,  king  of  Judaea,  and  contended  with  him  in  many 
battles  :  but  in  the  last,  fought  on  the  banks  of  the  Euphrates,  in  which 
he  was  defeated,  he  showed  himself  the  foremost  of  kings  in  strength 
and  valor.  It  may  be  said  that  Nicolas,  being  the  friend  of  Herod  the 
Great,  would  have  ready  access  to  the  sacred  books  of  the  Jews,  and  may 
have  drawn  his  narrative  thence.  But  the  fragments  of  Nicolas  do  not 
indicate  this.  In  the  very  few  places  where  he  touches  ancient  Jewish 
history,  it  is  always  in  connection  with  his  own  country,  and  from  a 
Damascene  point  of  view.  It  is  also  to  be  remarked,  that  while  he 
omits  main  features  of  the  Jewish  narrative,  as  the  fact  that  the  Syrians 
took  part  in  the  war  against  David  as  allies  of  the  king  of  Zobah,  he 
adds  features  not  contained  in  that  narrative ;  as  the  name  of  the  Syrian 
king,  the  extent  of  his  dominions,  and  the  occurrence  of  several  battles 
before  the  last  disaster.  These  points  are  quite  compatible  with  the 
Jewish  narrative,  but  they  could  not  be  drawn  from  it." 

NOTE  XXIX.,  p.  90. 

Eupolemus  said,  in  continuation  of  the  passage  above  quoted:  "He 
also  made  expeditions  against  the  Idumeans,  and  Ammonites,  and 
Moabites,  and  Iturseans,  and  Nabatseans,  and  Nabdseans."  (Euseb. 

Prcep.  Ev.  1.  s.  c.) 

»  * 

NOTE  XXX.,  p.  90. 
See  Dr.  Stanley's  Sinai  and  Palestine,  pp.  262-264. 

NOTE  XXXI.,  p.  90. 

See  Heeren's  Asiatic  Nations,  vol.  ii.  pp.  119-126  ;  and  Kenrick's 
Phoenicia,  pp.  201-205. 

NOTE  XXXH.,  p.  91. 

The  superior  antiquity  and  preeminence  in  early  times  of  Sidon  over 
Tyre  has  been  disputed.  Niebuhr  in  his  Lectures  (Vortrftge  liber  A  lie 


LECT.  III.  NOTES.  305 

Geschichte,  vol.  i.  p.  94  ;  p.  78,  E.  T.)  speaks  of  it  as  doubtful.  And 
the  writer  of  the  article  on  Phoenicia,  in  Dr.  Smith's  Dictionary  of 
Greek  and  Roman  Geography,  endeavors  to  prove  the  contrary,  (vol.  ii. 
p.  609.)  But  his  arguments  do  not  appear  to  me  very  cogent.  It  is 
easy  to  understand  how  Tyre,  which  in  later  times  completely  eclipsed 
her  neighbor,  should  have  assertors  of  her  superior  antiquity  in  the 
days  of  her  glory,  without  supposing  that  her  claim  was  founded  in 
justice  ;  but  is  inexplicable  that  Sidon  should  in  her  lowest  depression 
have  succeeded  in  maintaining  her  claim  against  Tyre,  unless  there  had 
been  truth  on  her  side.  Mr.  Kenrick  appears  to  me  to  decide  the  con 
troversy  aright,  when  he  concludes,  that  "Tyre  was  probably  at  first 
only  a  dependency  of  Sidon."  (See  his  Phoenicia,  pp.  340-342.) 

There  is  one  important  argument  in  favor  of  the  early  preeminence 
of  Sidon,  which  is  not  noticed  either  by  Mr.  Kenrick,  or  the  writer 
in  Smith's  Dictionary.  Sidon  takes  precedence  of  Tyre  in  the  early 
Egyptian  lists.  (See  M.  Bunsen's  Egypt,  vol.  iii.  p.  214  ;  and  Cam 
bridge  Essays,  for  1858,  Art.  vi.  p.  257.) 

NOTE  XXXHI.,  p.  91. 

Homer  makes  no  mention  at  all  of  Tyre  or  the  Tyrians,  while  he 
speaks  of  Sidon  and  the  Sidonians  repeatedly.  (See  Horn,  II.  vii. 
289,  290  ;  xxiii.  741-744;  Od.  iv.  618;  xv.  117,  and  425,)  He  also  in 
one  passage  uses  "  Sidonia  "  as  the  name  of  Phoenicia  in  general.1  It 
has  been  suggested  that  he  preferred  "Sidon"  and  "  Sidonian  "  to 
"Tyre"  and  "  Tyrian,"  because  the  words  are  more  "sonorous." 
(See  Diet,  of  Greek  and  Roman  Geography,  1.  s.  c.)  But  he  would 
scarcely  on  that  account  have  so  determinedly  excluded  Tyre,  the 
more  important  city  of  the  two  at  the  time  when  he  wrote,  from  all 
mention  in  either  of  his  poems. 

NOTE  XXXIV.,  p.  91. 

Strabo  in  one  place  (xvi.  2,  §  22)  speaks  somewhat  obscurely  on  the 
subject ;  but  in  another  (i.  2,  §  33)  he  distinctly  calls  Sidon  the  mother 
city  (rj)v  nrjTp6Trot.lv")  of  all  Phoenicia. 

1  «  They  have  embarked  and  gone  away  to  populous  Sidonia,  but  I  am  left  behind  with 
an  aching  heart."  ( Od.  xiii.  285,  286.) 

26* 


306  NOTES.  LECT.  III. 


NOTE  XXXV.,  p.  91. 

Justin  says,  "  The  nation  of  the  Tyrians  was  founded  by  the  Phoeni 
cians,  who,  being  annoyed  by  earthquakes,  left  their  native  country, 
and  dwelt  first  in  the  Assyrian  marsh,  but  afterwards  on  the  sea- coast. 
Here  they  built  a  city,  which  they  named  Sidon,  from  the  abundance 
of  fish  ;  for  Sidon  is  the  Phoenician  name  for  fish.  Many  years  after 
wards,  being  overcome  by  the  king  of  the  Ascalonians,  (i.  e.  the  in- 
habitants  of  Ashkelon,)  they  took  to  their  ships,  and  landing  at  Tyr* 
founded  a  city  there,  a  year  before  the  overthrow  of  Troy."  (Historic, 
xviii.  3.)  Tyre  is  here  made  an  actual  colony  from  Sidon.  (Compare 
Isaiah  xxiii.  12,  where  Tyre  is  addressed  as  "  daughter  of  Sidon.") 

NOTE  XXXVI.,  p.  91. 

Josephus  calls  Dius  "  a  man  who  is  believed  to  have  been  very  exact 
in  Phoenician  history."  (Contra  Apion.  i.  17.)  He  probably  lived  soon 
after  the  time  of  Alexander. 

NOTE  XXXVII.,  p.  91. 

Josephus  distinctly  states  that  Menander  drew  his  Phoenician  history 
from  native  sources.  See  his  treatise  Contra  Apion.,  i.  18  :  "  Now  this 
man  wrote  an  account  of  the  acts  performed  among  the  Greeks  and  the 
Barbarians,  under  each  of  their  kings,  taking  great  pains  to  learn  the 
history  from  the  national  literature  of  each  people."  (Compare  Ant. 
Jud.  ix.  14.) 

Dius  and  Menander  appear  to  have  been  silent  about  Sidon,  and  to 
have  made  their  Phoenician  histories  little  more  than  histories  of  Tyre. 
(See  their  fragments  in  C.  Mullcr's  Fragm.  Hist.  Gf.,  vol.  iv.  pp.  398  and 
415-447.) 

NOTE  XXXVIII.,  p.  91. 

The  preeminence  of  Tyre  over  the  other  Phoenician  cities  from  the 
time  of  David  to  the  close  of  Phoenician  history,  has  never,  I  believe, 
been  denied.  It  is  indicated  in  Scripture  by  the  uniform  tenor  of  the 
prophecies,  (Is.  xxiii.  1-18  ;  Jcr.  xxv.  22,  xlvii.  4  ;  Ez.  xxvi.-xxviii., 
&c. ;)  on  the  monuments  by  the  precedency  assigned  to  Tyre  in  the 
lists  of  Phoenician  towns,  (Layard,  Nineveh  and  Babylon,  p.  356  ;  Sir 


LECT.  III.  NOTES.  307 

H.  Rawlinson's  Commentary  on  the  Inscriptions  of  Babylonia  and  Assyria, 
p.  30  ;  compare  the  author's  Herodotus,  vol.  i.  p.  470,)  and  in  profane 
history  by  the  constant  mention  which  is  made  of  Tyre,  and  the  few 
and  scattered  notices  of  Sidon  which  occur  during  this  period.  The 
only  remarkable  exception  to  this  consensus  is  Herodotus,  who  seems 
impressed  with  the  superiority  of  Sidon.  (See  book  vii.  ch.  98,  where 
the  Sidonian  king  is  given  the  post  of  honor  ;  and  chaps.  44,  96,  99, 
100,  &c.,  where  the  Sidonian  ships  are  represented  as  excelling  all 
the  rest.)  Perhaps  he  is  unconsciously  biassed  by  his  Homeric  learn 
ing  ;  or  perhaps  Sidon  did  temporarily  recover  the  preeminence  from 
about  B.  C.  580  to  B.  C.  480,  in  consequence  of  Nebuchadnezzar's 
siege  and  destruction  of  Tyre.  Tyre,  however,  was  manifestly  once 
more  the  leading  city  at  the  time  of  the  invasion  of  Alexander.  (Ar- 
rian,  Exped.  Alex.,  ii.  15,  et  seqq.) 

NOTE  XXXIX.,  p.  91. 

See  Kenrick's  Phoenicia,  p.  58. 

NOTE  XL.,  p.  92. 

A  "  Hiram,  king  of  Tyre,"  is  mentioned  in  an  inscription  of  Tiglath- 
Pileser  II.  (See  the  author's  Herodotus,  vol.  i.  p.  470.) 

NOTE  XLL,  p.  92. 

"Mapen,  the  son  of  Sirom,"  (or  Hirom,)  was  king  of  Tyre  at  the 
time  of  Xerxes's  expedition  against  Greece,  (Herodot.  vii.  98.)  The 
name  also  occurs  among  the  Phoenicians  of  Cyprus,  (ib.  v.  104.) 

NOTE  XLII.,  p.  92. 

The  following  is  the  passage  of  Menander  concerning  Hiram  which 
Josephus  has  preserved  to  us  :  —  "  Now  when  Abibalus  died,  his  son 
Hiram  succeeded  to  the  kingdom.  He  lived  fifty-three  years,  and 
reigned  thirty-four.  He  raised  a  bank  on  what  was  called  « the  broad 
place,'  and  set  up  the  golden  pillar  in  the  temple  of  Jupiter.  Moreover 
he  went  and  cut  timber  from  the  mountain  called  Lebanon,  for  cedar  beams 
for  the  roofs  of  the  temples  ;  and  tearing  down  the  ancient  temples 
he  built  new  ones,  and  consecrated  the  groves  of  Hercules  and  Astarte, 


308  NOTES.  LECT.  in. 

and  built  the  temple  of  Hercules  first  in  the  month  Peritius,  and  after 
wards  that  of  Astarte,  when  he  had  marched  against  the  Tityans,  who 
refused  to  pay  tribute.  Having  subdued  them,  he  returned.  In  his 
reign  there  was  one  Abdemon,  a  very  young  man,  who  solved  the  prob 
lems  which  Solomon,  King  of  Jerusalem,  proposed."  (Contra  Apion., 
i.  18.) 

NOTE  XLIIL,  p.  92. 

The  words  of  Dius,  as  reported  by  Josephus,  are —  "  On  the  death  of 
Abibalus,  his  son  Hiram  became  king.  This  man  raised  banks  in  the 
eastern  part  of  the  city,  and  made  it  larger,  and  united  to  it  the  temple 
of  Olympian  Jupiter,  which  before  stood  on  an  island  by  itself.  He 
built  a  causeway  between,  and  adorned  this  temple  with  golden  offerings. 
Moreover,  he  went  ^tp  into  Lebanon,  and  cut  timber  to  build  temples. 
Now  they  say  that  Solomon,  who  ruled  over  Jerusalem,  sent  riddles  to 
Hiram,  and  asked  to  receive  riddles  from  him,  on  the  condition  that  the 
one  who  could  not  solve  them  should  pay  a  sum  of  money  to  the  one 
who  solved  them.  When  Hiram  had  agreed  to  this,  and  was  not  able 
to  solve  the  riddles,  he  paid  a  large  sum  of  money  as  a  forfeit.  The 
account  states,  moreover,  that  one  Abdemon,  a  man  of  Tyre,  solved 
the  riddles  proposed,  and  proposed  others  himself,  which  Solomon 
being  unable  to  solve,  he  forfeited  a  large  sum  to  Hiram.  {Contra 
Apian.,  i.  17.) 

NOTE  XL1V.,  p.  93. 

See  Clem.  Alex.  Stromata,  i.  p.  386  :  "  Hiram  gave  his  own  daughter 
to  Solomon  ...  as  Menander  of  Pergamus  says."  Compare  Tatian, 
Adversus  Grcecos,  37,  p.  273.  Mr.  Kenrick  thinks  this  was  a  mere 
"  popular  tradition,"  to  which  the  intimate  friendship  between  the  two 
kings  gave  rise.  He  argues  that  Hiram  would  not  have  married  his 
daughter  to  Solomon,  "  since  she  could  only  have  been  a  secondary 
wife,"  and  he  further  urges  the  silence  of  Scripture.  (See  his 
Phoenicia,  p.  356.)  The  latter  is  always  a  weak  ground,  and  in  the 
present  instance  is  not  fully  sustained,  since  among  Solomon's  seconda 
ry  wives  are  mentioned  "  Sidonian  (i.  e.  Phoenician)  princesses."  The 
force  of  the  former  argument  will  depend  on  the  relative  greatness 
which  we  assign  to  the  two  princes.  I  should  be  inclined  to  regard  the 
power  of  Salomon  as  greater,  and  that  of  Hiram  as  less,  than  Mi*. 
Km  rick  imagines. 


LECT.  III.  NOTES.  309 

NOTE  XLY.,  p.  93. 

Wilkinson,  in  the  author's  Herodotus,  vol.  ii.  p.  375  ;  Bunsen,  Egypt, 
vol.  iii.  pp.  206,  207. 

NOTE  XL VI.,  p.  93. 

See  Euseb.  Preep.  Ev.,  ix.  31-34.  The  passage  is  also  given  among 
the  fragments  of  Polyhistor,  in  Mtlller's  Fragmenta  Historicorum  Grceco- 
rum,  vol.  iii.  pp.  225,  226,  Fr.  18. 

NOTE  XLVIL,  p.  94. 

Egyptian  chronology  has  been  made  out  with  tolerable  certainty  from 
the  Apis  stelae  discovered  by  M.  Mariette,  as  far  as  the  accession  of 
Tirhakah,  which  appears  to  have  been  in  B.  C.  690.  (Wilkinson,  in 
the  author's  Herodotus,  vol.  ii.  pp.  380,  381.)  Manetho's  dynasties  place 
between  Tirhakah  and  the  commencement  of  the  22d  dynasty  a  space 
of  about  275  years.  This  would  give  B.  0.  965  as  the  date  of  Shi- 
shak's  (or  Sesonchis')  accession.  Assuming  from  the  Canon  of 
Ptolemy  B.  C.  651  as  the  date  of  Evil-merodach's  accession,  we  obtain, 
by  following  the  line  of  the  kings  of  Judah,  B.  C.  976  for  the  acces 
sion  of  Rehoboam,  and  B.  C.  1016  for  that  of  Solomon.  This  is  as 
near  an  agreement  as  we  could  reasonably  expect,  between  two  chro 
nologies  both  of  which  are  somewhat  uncertain.1 

NOTE  XLVIIL,  p.  94. 

Sesonchis  is  the  form  used  by  Africanus,  Sesonchosis  that  adopted 
by  Eusebius.  (See  the  Fragments  of  Manetho,  collected  by  Mons.  C. 
Mailer,  in  his  Fragmenta  Hist.  Or.,  vol.  ii.  p.  590,  Frs.  60  and  61.) 

NOTE  XLIX.,  p.  94. 

See  Wilkinson,  in  the  author's  Herodotus,  vol.  ii.  p.  377,  and  Bunsen, 
Egypt,  vol.  iii.  p.  241. 

1  The  dates  furnished  by  the  Apis  stela  prove  that  Manethofc  lists,  as  we  have  thorn, 
nre  not  wholly  to  be  depended  on.  In  the  Scripture  chronology  of  the  time,  one 
element  of  doubt  is  furnished  by  the  difference  which  sometimes  exists  between  tho 
LXX.  and  the  Hebrew  text.  Another  arises  from  the  want  of  exact  agreement  between 
the  chronology  of  the  Israelite  and  of  the  Jewish  kings. 


310  NOTES.  LECT.  III. 

The  21st,  or  first  Tanite  dynasty,  belonged  to  the  sacerdotal  caste, 
and  in  various  respects  bore  a  peculiar  character.  With  Sheshonk,  the 
first  king  of  the  22d,  or  first  Bubastite,  dynasty,  we  have  a  return  to 
the  old  character  of  Egyptian  monarchs.  (Wilkinson,  in  the  author's 
Herodotus,  vol.  ii.  pp.  375,  376;  Bunsen,  Egypt,  vol.  iii.  pp.  220,  221, 
and  241.) 

NOTE  L.,  p.  94. 
See  Euseb.  Prop.  Ev.,  ix.  34. 

NOTE  LI.,  p.  94. 

Ibid.  1.  s.  c.  "  Now  Theophilus  says,  that  Solomon  sent  the  surplus 
of  gold  to  the  king  of  the  Tyrians,  and  that  this  last  made  a  life-like 
statue  of  his  daughter,  of  full  length,  and  for  a  covering  to  the  statue 
a  hollow  pillar  of  gold." 

NOTE  LIL,  p.  95. 

See  the  author's  Herodotus,  vol.  i.  Essay  vii.  pp.  490,  491.  Compare 
Layard's  Nineveh  and  Babylon,  pp.  634,  635. 

NOTE  LIII.,  p.  96. 

Nineveh  and  Babylon,  ch.  xxvi.  pp.  650  and  655.  For  an  account  of 
the  structures  at  Susa  and  Persepolis,  see  Mr.  Loftus's  Chaldcea  and 
Susiana,  ch.  xxviii.  pp.  364-380,  and  Mr.  Fergusson's  elaborate  work, 
The  Palaces  of  Nineveh  restored,  pp.  95-190. 

NOTE  LIV.,  p.  96. 

Fergusson's  Palaces  of  Nineveh  restored,  pp.  272-276 ;  compare 
Layard's  Nineveh  and  Babylon,  ch.  xxvi.  pp.  649,  650. 

NOTE  LV.,  p.  96. 

Ker  Porter  says,  "The  total  height  of  each  column  is  60  feet;  the 
circumference  of  the  shaft  is  sixteen  ;  the  length  from  the  capital  to  the 
tor,  forty-four  feet."  (Travels,  vol.  i.  p.  633.)  In  another  part  of  the 


LECT.  III.  NOTES.  311 

ruins,  he  measured  two  pillars,  the  total  height  of  which,  including 
capital  and  tor,  -**.&  forty -fae  feet.  (Ibid.  p.  590.)  The  measurements 
adopted  by  Mr.  Fergusson  are,  for  the  palace  of  Darius,  20  feet ;  for 
the  hall  of  the  Hundred  Columns,  25  feet;  for  the  Propylseum  of 
Xerxes  46  feet,  9  inches;  arid  for  the  Hall  of  Xerxes,  64  feet.  (The 
Palaces  of  Nineveh  restored,  pp.  108,  125,  158,  and  177.) 

NOTE  LYL,  p.  96. 
See  Kugler's  Handbuch  der  Kunstgeschichte,  p.  81. 

NOTE  LVIL,  p.  97. 

Even  Mr.  Layard,  while  admitting  that  "  some  of  the  Assyrian 
sphinxes  may  have  been  overlaid  with  gold,  like  the  cherubim  in  Sol 
omon's  temple,"  adds  in  a  note,  "I  cannot,  however,  but  express  my 
conviction  that  much  of  the  metal  called  gold  both  in  the  sacred  writ 
ings  and  in  profane  authors  of  antiquity,  was  really  copper^  the  ori- 
chalchum  of  the  Greeks,  such  as  was  used  in  the  bowls  and  plates  dis 
covered  at  Nimroud."  (Nineveh  and  Babylon,  p.  652.)  But  metal  of 
this  slight  value  would  hardly  have  been  torn  with  violence  from  a 
sacred  building,  as  the  plating  appears  to  have  been  from  the  fourth 
stage  of  the  Birs  Nimrud.  It  is  further  to  be  remarked,  that  in  the 
classical  accounts  the  golden  beams,  &c.,  are  distinctly  said  to  have  been 
far  less  numerous  than  the  silver  ones.  Polybius  says  of  the  palace  at 
Ecbatana  —  for  although  it  was  built  entirely  of  cedar-wood  and 
cypress,  yet  none  of  the  wood  work  was  exposed,  but  the  beams,  and 
the  panels,  and  the  columns  in  the  porches  and  peristyles  were  plated, 
some  with  silver  and  some  icith  gold,  and  the  tiles  were  all  of  silver. 
And  again,  the  temple  .  .  .  had  columns  covered  with  gilding,  and 
there  were  very  many  silver  titles  in  it,  and  there  were  a  few  golden 
plinths,  but  a  great  many  silver  ones  remained.  (Bk.  x.  ch.  27,  §  10  and 
§12.) 

NOTE  LYIIL,  p.  97. 

For  the  use  of  gold  in  ornamentation  by  the  Phoenicians,  see  above, 
Notes  XLIII.  and  LI. ;  and  compare  Kenrick's  Phoenicia,  p.  252,  and 
O.  Mailer's  Handbuch  der  Archdologie  der  Kunst,  p.  273,  2d  edition. 


312  NOTES.  LECT.  III. 

For  its  use  by  the  Assyrians,  see  Mr.  Layard's  Nineveh  and  Babylon, 
pp.  651,  652.  For  its  use  by  the  Babylonians,  see  the  last  Note,  and 
compare  the  author's  Herodotus,  vol.  i.  p.  243,  note  5. 

NOTE  LIX.,  p.  97. 

Menander,  Fr.  1 :  "This  man  (i.  e.  Hiram)  raised  a  bank  on  what 
was  called  'the  broad  place,'  and  set  up  a  golden  pillar  in  the  temple 
of  Jupiter."  Compare  Theophilus,  as  quoted  in  Note  LI. 

NOTE  LX.,  p.  97. 
See  Mr.  Kenrick's  Phoenicia,  p.  252. 

NOTE  LXL,  p.  97. 
Layard's  Nineveh  and  Babylon,  pp.  195,  196. 

NOTE  LXIL,  p.  97. 
Ibid.  p.  150. 

NOTE  LXIL  b,  p.  98. 
See  Mr.  Kenrick's  Phoenicia,  p.  354. 

NOTE  LXIII.,  p.  98. 

The  geographic  accuracy  of  this  portion  of  Scripture  is  even  more 
striking  than  that  of  the  Pentateuch.  Dr.  Stanley  says,  "  It  is  impos 
sible  not  to  be  struck  by  the  constant  agreement  between  the  recorded 
history  and  the  natural  geography  both  of  the  Old  and  New  Testament. 
To  find  a  marked  correspondence  between  the  scenes  of  the  Sinaitic 
mountains  and  the  events  of  the  Israelite  wanderings  is  not  much,  per 
haps,  but  it  is  certainly  something  towards  a  proof  of  the  truth  of  the 
-whole  narrative.  .  .  .  The  detailed  harmony  between  the  life  of  Joshua 
and  the  various  scenes  of  his  battles,  is  a  slight  but  true  indication  that 
we  are  dealing  not  with  shadows,  but  with  realities  of  flesh  and  blood. 
Such  coincidences  are  not  usually  found  in  fables,  least  of  all  in  fables 
of  Eastern  origin."  (Sinai  and  Palestine,  Preface,  p.  xviii.)  And 


LECT.  III.  NOTES.  313 

this  detailed  harmony  he  exhibits  in  his  fourth,  seventh,  and  eleventh 
chapters. 

Among  minute  points  of  agreement  brought  to  light  by  recent  re 
searches  maybe  mentioned  (1.)  the  position  of  the  Hagarites  or  Ha- 
garenes  to  the  east  of  the  land  of  Gilead,  towards  or  upon  the 
Euphrates,  (1  Chron.  v.  9,  10  ;)  which  is  the  exact  locality  where  they 
are  found  three  or  four  centuries  later,  in  an  inscription  of  Sennacherib. 
(See  the  author's  Herodotus,  vol.  i.  p.  476.)  (2.)  The  existence  of 
female  sovereigns  among  the  Arabs  about  this  period,  which  is  shown 
by  the  mention  of  certain  ««  Queens  of  the  Arabs"  in  the  inscriptions 
of  Tiglath-Pileser  and  others.  (Ibid.  pp.  470  and  473.)  (3.)  The 
continued  importance  of  the  Moabites  and  Ammonites  which  appears 
by  the  occurrence  of  their  names  l  in  the  inscriptions  among  the  ene 
mies  of  Assyria. 

NOTE  LXIV.,  p.  99. 

The  great  Assyrian  Empire  of  Ctesias,  which  was  said  to  have  ex 
tended  from  Egypt  to  India,  and  to  have  lasted  about  1300  years,  from 
about  B.  C.  2182  to  B.  C.  876,  is  one  of  the  most  palpable  contradic 
tions  of  Scripture  which  profane  history  furnishes.  Hence  it  was 
generally  accepted  and  maintained  by  the  French  historians  of  the  last 
century.  Equally  opposed  to  Scripture  is  the  Median  Empire  of 
Ctesias,  commencing  in  B.  C.  876  with  the  destruction  of  Nineveh, 
and  continuing  to  the  time  of  Cyrus.  It  was  for  a  long  time  considered 
doubtful  among  historical  critics  whether  the  authority  of  Ctesias  or 
that  of  Herodotus  was  to  prevail  ;  but  as  time  went  on,  as  the  impoj- 
tance  of  Berosus's  history  came  to  be  recognized,  and  more  especially 
when  the  cuneiform  monuments  began  to  be  deciphered,  the  star  of 
Ctesias  began  to  pale  and  his  credit  to  sink.  Niebuhr  long  ago  re 
marked,  that  his  Assyrian  history  was  "  wholly  to  be  rejected." 
(Vortrage  liber  Alt.  Geschicht.,  vol.  i.  p.  16  ;  p.  12,  E.  T.)  M.  Bunsen, 
even  while  making  use  of  him,  allows  that  he  was  "a  confused  and 
uncritical  writer."  (Egypt,  vol.  iii.  p.  432.)  Col.  Mure  (Language 
and  Literature  of  Ancient  Greece,  vol.  v.  p.  484)  calls  him  "  an  author 
of  proverbially  doubtful  veracity."  Even  his  apologists  can  now  say 


1  Moab  appears  as  Mahab,  (Heb.  SHI)!!,)  Ammon  as  Beth-Jlmmon,  which  is  probably 
the  chief  city,  the  Kabbah  or  Rabbath-Ammon  of  Scripture. 

27 


314  NOTES.  LECT.  IV. 

little  more  in  his  defence,  than  that  ''there  is  no  positive  evidence  for 
charging  him  with  wilfully  falsifying  history."  (See  the  article  on 
Ctesias  in  Dr.  Smith's  Dictionary  of  Greek  and  Roman  Biography,  vol.  i. 
p.  899.) 

NOTE  LXV.,  p.  100. 

See  Norton's  Disquisition  on  the  Old  Testament  in  his  Genuineness 
of  the  Gospels,  vol.  ii.  p.  498.  De  Wette,  after  objecting  to  the  miracles 
and  prophecies  recorded  in  Samuel,  says,  "Elsewhere  the  narrative 
bears  the  marks  of  a  genuine  history,  and  where  it  is  not  partly  derived 
from  contemporary  documents  —  as  it  is  in  some  places  —  it  is  yet 
drawn  from  an  oral  tradition,  very  lively  and  true,  and  is  only  dis 
turbed  and  confused  here  and  there."  (Einleitung,  §  178,  p.  222  ; 
Parker's  Translation,  vol.  ii.  p.  210.)  He  also  finds  "authentic  his 
torical  accounts  "  in  the  books  of  Kings.  (Ibid.  §  183,  p.  232  ;  vol.  ii. 
p.  230,  E.  T.) 


LECTURE     IV. 

NOTE  I.,  p.  102. 
See  Lecture  HI.,  page  80. 

NOTE  H.,  p.  103. 
Ibid.  p.  83. 

NOTE  III.,  p.  103. 

The  author  of  Chronicles  refers  us  either  to  "  the  book  of  the 
Kings,"  (2  Chr.  xxiv.  27,)  or  more  explicitly  to  "the  book  of  the 
Kings  of  Israel  and  Judah,"  (2  Chr.  xxvii.  7  ;  xxviii.  26 ;  xxxii.  32  ; 
xxxv.  27.)  But  the  author  of  Kings  throughout  distinguishes  between 
"  the  book  of  the  Chronicles  of  the  Kings  of  Judah,"  (1  Kings  xiv.  19  ; 
xv.  7,  23  ;  xxii.  46  ;  2  Kings  viii.  23  ;  xii.  19  ;  xiv.  18,  &c.,)  and  "  the 
book  of  the  Chronicles  of  the  Kings  of  Israel  (1  Kings  xiv.  19  ; 
xv.  31  ;  xvi.  5,  14,  20,  27  ;  xii.  39  ;  2  Kings  i.  18  ;  x.  34  ;  xiii.  8, 


LECT.  IV.  NOTES.  315 

12  ;  &c.)  The  most  probable  explanation  of  this  difference  is,  that  the 
two  documents  were  originally  separate,  having  been  drawn  up  in  and 
for  the  two  different  kingdoms  ;  but  that  by  the  tune  of  the  writer  of 
our  books  of  Chronicles  they  had  been  united  in  one,  and  were  known 
to  the  Jews  under  the  title  which  he  uses.  (See  Keil,  Apologetischer 
Versuch  ilber  die  BUcher  der  Chronik,  p.  252,  et  seqq.  And  compare  his 
Commentar  ttber  die  BUcher  der  KOnige,  Einleitung,  §  3  ;  p.  18,  E.  T.1) 

NOTE  IV.,  p.  104. 

This  seems  to  be  the  real  meaning  of  the  difficult  passage  in  Chron 
icles,  (2  Chr.  xx.  34,)  which  our  translators  have  rendered  incorrectly 
in  the  text,  but  correctly,  so  far  as  the  letter  goes,  in  the  margin ;  — 
"  Now  the  rest  of  the  acts  of  Jehoshaphat,  first  and  last,  behold,  they 
are  written  in  the  words  of  Jehu,  the  son  of  Hanani,  who  was  made 

to    ascend    into    the   book    of    the   kings   of   Israel " nb^Jl  TEl* 

isnB?  ^K  ^BD'b?  —  i-  e.  who  (the  author  being  identified  with  his 
work)  was  transferred  or  removed  to  the  book  of  the  Kings  of  Israel. 
The  LXX.  interpreters  paraphrase  rather  than  translate  when  they  say, 
"  who  wrote  a  book  of  the  Kings  of  Israel "  (o?  xaTtyooufJs  piphiov 
|9aai>U'cuv  'IOQai'll.')  Compare  Keil,  1.  s.  c. 

NOTE  V.,  p.  104. 

See  2  Chron.  xxxii.  32.  Our  translators  have  destroyed  the  force  of 
the  passage  by  following  the  LXX.  and  interpolating  the  word  "  and." 
"The  rest  of  the  acts  of  Hezekiah,"  they  say,  "and  his  goodness, 
behold,  they  are  written  in  the  vision  of  Isaiah  the  prophet,  the  son  of 
Amos,  and  in  the  book  of  the  kings  of  Judah  and  Israel."  But  in  the 
original  there  is  no  "  and  :  "  the  passage  runs,  "  the  rest  of  the  acts  of 
Hezekiah,  and  his  goodness,  behold,  they  are  written  in  the  vision  of 
Isaiah  the  prophet,  the  son  of  Amos,  in  the  book  of  the  kings  of  Judah 
and  Israel." 

NOTE  VI.,  p.  104. 

The  36th,  37th,  and  38th  chapters  of  Isaiah  are  almost  identical  with 
a  part  of  the  18th,  the  19th,  and  the  20th  chapters  of  the  second  Book 

1  Commentary  on  the  Books  of  Kings,  by  Karl  Priedrich  Keil,  D.  D.,  translated  by 
James  Murphy,  LL.  D.  Edinburgh,  Clark,  1857. 


316 


NOTES. 


LECT.  IV 


of  Kings.     The  slightness  of  their  differences  will  best  be  seen  by  pla 
cing  an  extract  or  two  in  parallel  columns :  — 


2  KINGS. 

Chap,  xviii.  17-20.  And  the 
King  of  Assyria  sent  Tartan  and 
Rabsaris  and  Rab-shakeh  from 
Lachish  to  King  Hezekiah,  with 
a  great  host  against  Jerusalem. 
And  they  want  up  and  came  to  Jeru 
salem.  And  when  they  icere  come 
up,  they  came  and  stood  by  the 
conduit  of  the  upper  pool,  which 
is  in  the  highway  of  the  fuller's 
field.  And  when  they  had  called  to 
the  king,  there  came  out  to  them 
Eliakim,  the  son  of  Hilkiah,  which 
was  over  the  household,  and  Sheb- 
na  the  scribe,  and  Joah  the  son  of 
Asaph  the  recorder.  And  Rab- 
shakeh  said  unto  them,  Speak  ye 
now  to  Hezekiah,  Thus  saith  the 
great  king,  the  King  of  Assyria, 
"What  confidence  is  this  wherein 
thou  trustest  ?  Thou  sayest  —  but 
they  are  but  vain  words  —  I  have 
counsel  and  strength  for  the  war. 
Now  on  whom  dost  thou  trust, 
that  thou  rebellest  against  me  ? 

Chap.  xix.  15-19.  And  Heze 
kiah  prayed  before  the  Lord,  and 
said,  O  Lord  God  of  Israel,  which 
dwellest  between  the  cherubims, 
thou  art  the  God,  even  thou  alone, 
of  all  the  kingdoms  of  the  earth : 
thou  hast  made  heaven  and  earth. 
Lord,  bow  down  thine  ear  and 


ISAIAH. 

Chap,   xxxvi.   2-5.      And    the 

King  of  Assyria  sent  Rab-shakeh 
from  Lachish  to  Jerusalem  unto 
King  Hezekiah  with  a  great  army. 
And  he  stood  by  the  conduit  of 
the  upper  pool  in  the  highway  of 
the  fuller's  field.  Then  came  forth 
unto  him  Eliakim,  Hilkiah's  son, 
which  was  over  the  hpuse,  and 
Shebna  the  scribe,  and  Joah, 
Asaph's  son,  the  recorder.  And 
Rab-shakeh  said  unto  them,  Say 
ye  now  to  Hezekiah,  Thus  saith 
the  great  king,  the  King  of  Assyr 
ia,  What  confidence  is  this  wherein 
thou  trustest  ?  /  say,  [sayest  thou,] 
but  they  are  but  vain  words,  I  have 
counsel  and  strength  for  war :  now 
on  whom  dost  thou  trust,  that 
thou  rebellest  against  me  ? 


Chap,  xxxvii.  15-20.  And  Hez 
ekiah  prayed  unto  the  Lord,  saying, 
O  Lord  of  hosts,  God  of  Israel, 
that  dwellest  between  the  cher 
ubims,  thou  art  the  God,  even  thou 
alone,  of  all  the  kingdoms  of  the 
earth  ;  thou  hast  made  heaven  and 
earth.  Incline  thine  ear,  O  Lord, 


LECT.  IV. 


NOTES 


317 


hear  ;  open,  Lord,  thine  eyes,  and 
sec ;  and  hear  the  word  of  Sen 
nacherib,  which  hath  sent  him  to 
reproach  the  living  God.  Of  a 
truth,  Lord,  the  kings  of  Assyria 
have  destroyed  the  nations  and 
their  lands,  and  have  cast  their 
gods  into  the  fire,  for  they  were 
no  gods,  but  the  work  of  men's 
hands,  wood  and  stone :  therefore 
they  have  destroyed  them.  Now, 
therefore,  O  Lord  our  God,  /  be 
seech  thee,  save  thou  us  out  of  his 
hand,  that  all  the  kingdoms  of  the 
earth  may  know  that  thou  art  the 
Lord  God,  even  thou  only. 


and  hear ;  open  thine  eyes,  O 
Lord,  and  see  ;  and  hear  all  the 
words  of  Sennacherib,  which  hath 
sent  to  reproach  the  living  God. 
Of  a  truth,  Lord,  the  kings  of 
Assyria  have  laid  waste  all  the 
lands  and  their  countries,  and  have 
cast  their  gods  into  the  fire,  for 
they  were  no  gods,  but  the  work 
of  men's  hands,  wood  and  stone ; 
therefore  they  have  destroyed  them. 
Now,  therefore,  O  Lord  our  God, 
save  us  from  his  hand,  that  all  the 
kingdoms  of  the  earth  may  know 
that  thou  art  the  Lord,  even  thou 
only. 


NOTE  VII.,  p.  104. 

This  agreement  is  chiefly  between  the  last  chapter  of  Jeremiah  and 
the  24th  and  25th  chapters  of  the  second  Book  of  Kings.  It  is  fully 
equal  to  that  above  exhibited  between  Kings  and  Isaiah. 

NOTE  VHL,  p.  104. 

KeH,  Commentar  tiber  die  BUcher  der  KOnige,  Einleitung,  §  3  ;  p.  19, 
E.  T. 

NOTE  IX.,  p.  105. 

De  "VVette,  Einleitung,  §  184,  p.  234 ;  vol.  ii.  p.  241,  Parker's  Trans 
lation  ;  Bertholdt,  Einleitung,  vol.  iii.  p.  154,  et  seqq. 


NOTE  X.,  p.  106. 

This  has  been  well  shown  by  Havernick,  (Einleitung,  §  176,  vol.  ii. 
p.  201,  et  seqq.,)  and  Keil,  (Versuch  fiber  die  BUcher  der  Chronik,  p. 
199,  et  seqq.)  Keil,  however,  appears  to  me  to  go  too  far  when  he 
denies  that  the  author  of  Chronicles  made  any  use  at  all  of  Kings, 

27* 


813 


NOTES. 


LECT.  IV. 


(Commentar  fiber  die  Sticker  der  Kdnige,  Einleitung,  §  3  ;  p.  17,  note 
1,  E.  T.)  Such  passages  as  the  subjoined  show  something  more  than 
the  mere  use  of  a  common  authority :  — 


2  CHRON.  i.  14-17. 


1  KINGS  x.  26-29. 


And  Solomon  gathered  chariots  And  Solomon  gathered  together 
and  horsemen  :  and  he  had  a  thou-  chariots  and  horsemen  :  and  he 
sand  and  four  hundred  chariots,  had  a  thousand  and  four  hundred 
and  twelve  thousand  horsemen,  chariots,  and  twelve  thousand 
which  he  placed  in  the  chariot  horsemen,  whom  he  bestowed  in 
cities,  and  with  the  king  at  Jeru-  the  cities  for  chariots,  and  with 
salem.  And  the  king  made  silver  the  king  at  Jerusalem.  And  the 
and  gold  at  Jerusalem  as  plenteous  king  made  silver  to  be  in  Jerusa- 
as  stones,  and  cedar  trees  made  lem  as  plenteous  as  stones,  and 
he  as  the  sycamore  trees  that  are  cedars  made  he  to  be  as  the  syca- 
in  the  vale  for  abundance.  And  more  trees  that  are  in  the  vale  for 
Solomon  had  horses  brought  out  abundance.  And  Solomon  had 
of  Egypt,  and  linen  yarn  :  the  horses  brought  out  of  Egypt,  and 
king's  merchants  received  the  linen  linen  yarn  :  the  king's  merchants 
yarn  at  a  price.  And  they  fetched  received  the  linen  yarn  at  a  price. 
up  and  brought  forth  out  of  Egypt  And  a  chariot  came  up  and  went  out 
ft  chariot  for  six  hundred  shekels  of  Egypt  for  six  hundred  shekels 
of  silver,  and  a  horse  for  a  hun-  of  silver,  and  a  horse  for  a  hun 
dred  and  fifty :  and  so  brought  dred  and  fifty :  and  so  for  all  the 
they  out  [horses]  for  all  the  kings  kings  of  the  Hittites,  and  for  the 
of  the  Hittites,  and  for  the  kings  kings  of  Syria,  did  they  bring  them, 


of  Syria,  by  their  means. 


out  by  their  means.1 


Compare  also  2  Chron.  xiv.  1-4  with  1  Kings  xv.  11,  12  ;  2  Chron. 
xvi.  11-14  with  1  Kings  xv.  23,  24  ;  2  Chron.  xxii.  10-12  with  2  Kings 
xi.  1-3  ;  2  Chron.  xxiii.  1-21  with  2  Kings  xi.  4-20  ;  and  2  Chron. 
xxxiv.  8-33  with  2  Kings  xxiii.  5-20.  In  almost  all  these  passages, 
however,  the  Chronicler  introduces  points  not  mentioned  by  the  author 
of  Kings,  so  that  he  evidently  does  not  trust  to  him  as  his  sole 
authority ;  e.  g. 

1  In  the  original  the  resemblance  is  even  closer  than  in  our  translation.  It  is  the 
same  word  which  is  translated  as  "  placed,"  and  as  "  bestowed,"  and  the  same  roots  are 
used  where  we  have  to  say  in  the  one  case  "fetched  up  and  brought  forth,"  in  the  other 
"  came  up  and  went  out." 


LECT.  IV. 


NOTES. 


319 


2  CIIRON.  xvi.  11-14. 

And,  behold,  the  acts  of  Asa, 
first  and  last,  lo,  they  are  written 
iii  the  book  of  the  kings  of  Judah 
and  Israel.  And  Asa  in  the  thirty 
and  ninth  year  of  his  reign  was  dis 
eased  in  his  feet,  until  his  disease 
was  exceeding  great ;  yet  in  his  dis 
ease  he  sought  not  to  the  Lord,  but  to 
the  physicians.  And  Asa  slept  with 
his  fathers,  and  died  in  the  one  and 
fortieth  year  of  his  reign  ;  and  they 
buried  him  in  his  own  sepulchres 
which  he  had  made  for  himself  in 
the  city  of  David,  and  laid  him  in 
the  bed  which  was  filled  with  sweet 
odors  and  divers  kinds  of  spices  pre 
pared  by  the  apothecaries'  art ;  and 
they  made  a  very  great  burning  for 
him.  And  Jehoshaphat,  &c. 


1  KINGS  XT.  23,  24. 

The  rest  of  the  acts  of  Asa,  and 
all  his  might,  and  all  that  he  did, 
and  the  cities  which  he  built,  are 
they  not  written  in  the  book  of 
the  Chronicles  of  the  kings  of 
Judah  ?  Nevertheless,  in  the  time 
of  his  old  age  he  was  diseased  in 
his  feet.  And  Asa  slept  with  his 
fathers,  and  was  buried  with  his 
fathers  in  the  city  of  David  his 
father ;  and  Jehoshaphat  his  son 
reigned  in  his  stead. 


NOTE  XI.,  p.  106. 

See  the  remarks  of  Mons.  C.  Mailer,  prefixed  to  his  collection  of  the 
fragments  of  Manetho  in  the  Fragmenta  Historicorum  Gracorum,  vol.  ii. 
pp.  514,  515. 

NOTE  XIL,  p.  106. 

The  discrepancies  between  the  books  of  Chronicles,  on  the  one  hand, 
and  the  books  of  Samuel  and  Kings,  on  the  other,  have  been  largely,  if 
not  forcibly,  stated  by  De  Wette,  (Einleitung,  \  190,  p.  244,  et  seqq.,) 
and  his  commentator,  Mr.  Theodore  Parker,  (vol.  ii.  pp.  266-305.)  A 
satisfactory  explanation  of  the  greater  number  will  be  found  in  Keil's 
Apologetischer  Versuch,  to  which  the  student  is  referred,  as  well  as  to 
Bertheau's  Comment  ar,  of  which  a  translation  has  recently  appeared.1 
Some,  however,  as  the  difference  of  numbers  and  names,  cannot  but 

1  This  translation  forms  the  latter  portion  of  the  16th  volume  of  Clark's  Foreign 
Theological  Library,  New  Series,  Edinburgh,  1857. 


320  NOTES.  LECT.  IV. 

remain  discrepancies ;  in  these  \ve  may  be  allowed  to  suspect  corrup 
tions  of  the  original  text,  by  carelessness  in  transcription,  or  by  the 
insertion  of  marginal  addenda.  (See  the  excellent  remarks  of  Professor 
Stuart,  Defence  of  the  Old  Testament  Canon,  §  6,  pp.  143-145  ;  and 
compare  the  article  on  Chronicles,  in  Kitto's  Cyclopedia.} 

NOTE  XIII.,  p.  107. 

See  Mr.  Vance  Smith's  Prophecies  relating  to  Nineveh  and  the  Assyri 
ans,  p.  76.  The  special  object  of  this  work  is  to  elucidate  a  certain 
portion  of  the  prophecies  by  the  light  thrown  upon  them  from  the  con 
nected  histories  of  the  Assyrians  and  the  Hebrews.  Similar  efforts  have 
been  made  in  Germany  by  Hitzig,1  Otto  Strauss,2  and  others. 

NOTE  XIV.,  p.  107. 

Jonah  is  commonly  placed  somewhat  earlier  ;  but  his  work  (if  it  be 
his,  which  is  doubtful)  belongs  rather  to  the  historical  than  the  pro 
phetical  Scriptures. 

NOTE  XV.,  p.  108. 

By  Paley,  in  his  Horee  Paulina,  a  work  which  for  closeness,  clear 
ness,  and  cogency  of  reasoning,  has  never  been  surpassed,  and  rarely 
equalled. 

NOTE  XVI.,  p.  109. 

The  kings  of  Israel  and  Judah  mentioned  in  the  Assyrian  Inscrip 
tions  are,  Jehu,  Menahem,  Hezekiah,  and  Manasseh.  Jehu's  name 
appears  on  the  Black  Obelisk  in  the  British  Museum,  a  monument  of 
the  Old  Empire,  dating  probably  from  about  B.  C.  870  ;  Menahem  is 
mentioned  by  Tiglath-Pileser  II.,  the  first  monarch  of  the  New  Empire, 
who  began  to  reign  in  B.  C.  747  ;  Hezekiah  occurs  among  the  enemies 
of  Sennacherib,  who  did  not  ascend  the  throne  till  about  B.  C.  700  ; 
and  Manasseh  is  found  among  the  tributaries  of  Sennacherib's  son, 
Esarhaddon.  No  doubt  the  Scriptural  names  have  helped  to  determine 
the  date  of  the  monuments  ;  but  putting  these  names  aside,  and  look- 

1  Zwblf  Kleinen  Propheten  erklttrt,  Leipsic,  1838. 

2  Nahumi  de  Nino  Vaticinium,  Berlin,  1853. 


LECT.  IV.  NOTES.  321 

ing  merely  to  forms  of  language,  style  of  writing,  character  of  sculp 
ture,  and  position  of  the  monuments  when  in  situ,  I  believe  no  cunei 
form  scholar  would  hesitate  as  to  the  relative  antiquity  to  be  assigned 
to  them. 

NOTE  XVIL,  p.  109. 

The  practice  of  calling  cities  after  the  names  of  their  founders  has 
always  prevailed  in  the  East.  Perhaps  the  earliest  known  instance  is 
that  of  Harnesses  —  the  Beth-Barneses  of  the  Hieratic  Papyri.  (See 
Note  LXXXVIL,  on  Lecture  II.,  p.  287.)  That  the  Assyrians  were 
acquainted  with  the  practice  we  know  from  the  case  of  Sargon,  who 
called  the  city  which  he  built  a  little  .to  the  north  of  Nineveh,  Beth- 
Sargina,  or  Dur-Sargina,  "  the  abode  of  Sargon."  Esarhaddon  too,  in 
one  of  his  Inscriptions,  says,  "A  city  I  built.  City  of  Esarhaddon  I 
called  its  name." 1  In  more  recent  times  the  names  Ahmed-abad, 
Shereef-abad,  Hyder-abad,  &c.,  have  had  a  similar  origin.  . 

Samaria  is  only  called  Beth-Khumri  in  the  earlier  inscriptions.  From 
the  time  of  Tiglath-Pileser  II.,  the  term  used  is  Tsamirin. 

NOTE  XVIIL,  p.  110. 

So  Wilkinson,  in  the  author's  Herodotus,  vol.  ii.  p.  376.  M.  Bunsen 
reads  the  legend  Jutah  Malk,  and  translates  (not  very  intelligibly) 
"  Judah,  King."  (See  his  Egypt,  vol.  iii.  p.  242.)  He  agrees,  how 
ever,  as  to  its  intention,  and  views  it  as  a  proof  of  Sheshonk's  having 
made  an  expedition  to  Jerusalem. 

NOTE  XIX.,  p.  110. 

There  were  three  Osorkons  in  the  21st  dynasty,  according  to  the 
monuments,  though  Manetho  mentioned  but  one.  Osorkon  I.  wa's  the 
son  and  successor  of  Shishak.  It  is  just  possible  that  he  may  have  been 
the  assailant  of  Asa.2  Sir  G.  Wilkinson,  however,  regards  Osorkon 
II.,  who  married  the  great  granddaughter  of  Shishak,  as  more  natu 
rally  the  contemporary  of  Asa,  the  great  grandson  of  Solomon,  since 
Solomon  and  Shishak  were  contemporaries.  (See  the  author's  Herodo- 
tus,  vol.  ii.  p.  378.) 

1  See  Mr.  Fox  Talbot's  Assyrian  Texts  translated,  p.  1L 
3  This  is  M.  Bunsen's  view,  Egypt,  vol.  iii.  p.  308. 


322  NOTES.  LECT.  IV. 

NOTE  XX.,  p.  111. 

Menander  said  —  "  On  the  death  of  Hiram,  his  son  Baleazar 
(read  Balthazar)  succeeded  to  the  kingdom.  He  lived  43  years,  and 
reigned  7.  After  him  came  his  son  Abdastratus,  (read  Abdastar- 
tus,)  who  lived  29  years,  and  reigned  9.  Against  this  man  the  four 
sons  of  his  nurse  conspired,  and  slew  him,  whereupon  the  eldest 
of  these  brothers  reigned  12  years.  After  these  came  Astartus, 
the  son  of  Deleastartus,  who  lived  54  years,  and  reigned  12.  His 
brother  Aserymus  succeeded  him,  living  54  years,  and  reigning  9. 
He  was  slain  by  his  brother  Pheles,  who  took  possession  of  the 
kingdom,  but  reigned  only  8  months,  when  he  was  murdered,  in 
the  50th  year  of  his  age,  by  Ithobalus,  (i.  e.  Ethbaal,)  the  priest  of 
Astarte,  who  reigned  32  years,  and  lived  68."  (Ap.  Joseph.  Contra 
Apionem,  i.  18.)  We  have  thus  from  the  death  of  Hiram,  which  can 
not  have  taken  place  till  the  26th  year  of  Solomon's  reign  (1  Kings 
ix.  10-14,)  the  following  series  —  Balthazar,  7  years;  Abdastartus, 
9  years ;  his  successor,  12  years ;  Astartus,  12  years ;  Aserymus,  9 
years  ;  Pheles,  eight  months  ;  total  49  years  and  eight  months.  In 
Ahab's  case  we  have  Jeroboam,  22  years ;  Nadab,  2  years ;  Baasha, 
24  years ;  Elah,  2  years ;  Omri,  12  years  ;  total  62  years  ;  to  which 
must  be  added  some  10  or  12  years  for  the  excess  of  Solomon's  reign 
over  Hiram's.  It  thus  appears  that  Ahab  ascended  the  throne  about  20 
or  25  years  after  Eth-baal. 

NOTE  XXI.,  p.  111. 

See  Kenrick's  Phoenicia,  p.  362  ;  Bunsen's  Egypt,  vol.  iii.  p.  428  ; 
Keil's  Commentar,  (p.  259,  E.  T.,)  &c. 

NOTE  XXII.,  p.  111. 

The  term  "  Zidonians  "  seems  to  bear  the  generic  sense  in  1  Kings 
xi.  1  and  5  ;  and  2  Kings  xxiii.  13  ;  but  the  specific  in  Judges  x. 
12,  and  xviii.  7.  The  early  preeminence  of  Sidon  (see  Note  XXXII. 
to  Lecture  III.)  sufficiently  accounts  for  the  generic  use,  which  was 
well  known  to  the  Greek  and  Latin  poets,  (Horn.  Od.  xiii.  285  ;  Soph. 
Fr.  Ixxxii. ;  Eurip.  Hel.  1429 ;  Virg.  /En.  i.  446,  &c.) 


LECT.  IV.  NOTES.  323 


NOTE  XXIIL,  p.  112. 

See  Josephus,  Ant.  Jud.  viii.  13  :  "  Menander  also  mentions  this 
drought,  writing  thus  in  the  Acts  of  Ithobalus,  king  of  the  Tynans  : 
4  Under  this  man  there  was  a  want  of  rain  from  the  month  Hyper- 
beretseus  to  the  same  month  of  the  following  year.  But  when  he 
made  supplication,  there  was  a  violent  thunder  storm.' "  May  we  con 
nect  the  "  supplication  "  in  the  last  clause  with  that  of  Elijah  on  Mount 
Carmel,  (1  Kings  xviii.  42,  43,)  which  overhung  the  Tyrian  territory  ? 

NOTE  XXIV.,  p.  112. 

No  continuous  history  of  Syria  has  come  down  to  us.  Nicolas  of 
Damascus,  whose  influence  with  Herod  the  Great  and  with  Augustus 
must  have  given  him  access  to  any  archives  that  Damascus  or  the  other 
Syrian  towns  may  have  possessed,  appears  to  have  introduced  a  short 
sketch  of  ancient  Syrian  history  into  the  fourth  book  of  his  great 
work,  which  treated  mainly  of  the  early  Lydian  kings.  (See  Mailer's 
preface  to  the  fragments  of  Nicolas,  in  his  Fragm.  Hist.  Gr.,  vol.  iii. 
p.  345.)  Of  this  sketch,  however,  we  unfortunately  possess  but 
three  short  fragments,  preserved  to  us  by  Josephus.1  The  first  of 
these  relates  the  sojourn  of  Abraham  at  Damascus,  on  his  way  from 
Chaldoea  to  Canaan  —  a  sojourn  deriving  some  support  from  the  fact 
that  Abraham's  steward  was  a  Damascene  (Gen.  xv.  2)  —  but  absurdly 
makes  Abraham  "king  of  Damascus"  during  his  stay,  (Fr.  30.)  The 
second  has  been  given  at  length  in  the  notes  on  Lecture  III.  (Note 
XXVIII.)  The  third  is  interpreted  by  Josephus  as  bearing  upon  the 
Syrian  war  of  Ahab  ;  but  its  true  reference  is  to  that  of  Baasha.  It 
runs  thus  :  "  Now  when  he  died  (i.  e.  Hadad  I.)  his  posterity  reigned 
for  ten  generations,  each  one  inheriting  from  his  father,  together  with 
the  royal  authority,  the  same  name  also,  like  the  Pharaohs  in  Egypt. 
But  the  third,  who  was  the  mightiest  of  all  these,  wishing  to  avenge 
his  grandfather's  defeat,  marched  against  the  Jews,  and  took  the  city 
now  called  Samaria."  (Fr.  31.)  It  is  evident  that  Hadad  III.,  who 
was  the  grandson  of  David's  antagonist,  cannot  have  contended  against 
Ahab,  140  years  afterwards.  Nicolas  undoubtedly  intends  the  antag 
onist  of  Baasha,  half  a  century  earlier,  whose  inroad  was  completely  suc- 

1  Jlnt.  Jud.  vii.  5. 


324  NOTES.  LECT.  IV. 

cessful,  and  who  reduced  Samaria  to  a  sort  of  subjection,  (1  Kings  xv. 
20  ;  xx.  34.)  With  respect  to  the  continuance  of  the  name  and  family 
of  Hadad  on  the  Damascene  throne  for  ten  generations,  Nicolas  ap 
pears  to  be  at  variance  with  Scripture.  Seemingly  he  takes  no  account 
of  the  break  in  the  line  caused  by  the  usurpation  of  Hazael.  Perhaps 
in  Syrian  history  this  was  glossed  over,  and  Hazael  regarded  as  having 
had  a  claim  of  blood.  At  any  rate  it  is  remarkable  that  he  adopted 
the  family  name  of  the  preceding  dynasty  for  his  son,  who  is  called 
Ben-hadad  in  2  Kings  xiii.  3. 

NOTE  XXV.,  p.  113. 

See  the  Black  Obelisk  inscription,  which  has  been  very  accurately 
translated  by  Dr.  Hincks,  in  the  Dublin  University  Magazine  for  Octo 
ber,  1853.  Compare  the  author's  Herodotus,  vol.  i.  pp.  464,  465. 

NOTE  XXVI.,  p.  113. 

"  Benhadad,  the  king  of  Syria,  gathered  all  his  host  together ;  and 
there  were  thirty  and  two  kings  with  him,  and  horses,  and  chariots." 
(1  Kings  xx.  1.)  "Number  thee  an  army  like  the  army  which  thou 
hast  lost,  horse  for  horse,  and  chariot  for  chariot."  (Ibid,  verse  25.) 
The  Syrian  armies  appear  in  the  Black  Obelisk  inscription  to  be  com 
posed  to  a  very  large  extent  of  chariots.  As  many  as  1100  are  taken 
on  one  occasion.  The  multitude  of  petty  princes  mentioned  is  also  in 
accordance  with  the  inscriptions  generally,  which  represents  the  whole 
country  between  the  Euphrates  and  Egypt  as  divided  up  among  a 
number  of  tribes  and  nations,  each  under  its  own  king  or  chief. 

NOTE  XXVII.,  p.   113. 

The  Black  Obelisk  king,  in  his  6th,  llth,  and  14th  years,  contends 
with  Benhadad,  but  in  his  18th  his  adversary  is  Hazael.  (Dublin  Univ. 
Mag.,  October,  1853,  pp.  422,  423,  and  424.) 

NOTE  XXVIII.,  p.  113. 

The  Obelisk  contains  no  account  of  any  war  with  Jehu ;  but  men 
tions  him  among  those  who  paid  tribute  to  the  Assyrian  monarch. 
He  is  styled  "  Yahua,  the  son  of  Khumri"  —  Jehu,  the  son  of  Omri, 


LECT.  IV.  NOTES.  o25 

which  causes  some  difficulty.  Jehu  is  said  in  Scripture  to  hare  been 
the  son  of  Jehoshaphat,  and  grandson  of  Nimshi,  (2  Kings  ix.  2,  14.) 
It  is  possible,  however,  that  he  may  have  been  on  the  mother's  side  de 
scended  from  Omri.  Or  the  story  of  his  being  so  descended  may  have 
been  invented  by  the  Samaritans,  and  believed  by  foreign  nations.  Or, 
finally,  the  Assyrians  may  merely  have  assumed  that  he  was  a  descend 
ant  of  Omri,  since  he  sat  on  his  throne,  and  ruled  in  the  city  known  to 
them  by  his  name.  (See  above,  Note  XVII.)  His  tribute  consisted  of 
silver,  gold,  and  articles  of  various  kinds  manufactured  from  gold. 

NOTE  XXIX.,  p.  114. 

The  only  remains  of  this  period  are  an  inscription  set  up  by  the  son 
of  the  Black  Obelisk  king,  relating  his  military  exploits  during  the  first 
four  years  of  his  reign,  and  two  or  three  brief  inscriptions  of  the  time 
of  his  successor,  the  most  important  of  which  is  that  noticed  below, 
(Note  XXXIII.)  The  campaigns  of  the  earlier  king  are  in  Babylonia, 
Media,  Armenia,  and  along  the  flanks  of  Taurus,  but  do  not  touch 
Syria  or  Palestine. 

NOTE  XXX.,  p.  114. 

See  Kenrick's  Phoenicia,  p.  367  :  "  Our  knowledge  of  the  history  of 
Tyre  ceases  with  Dido's  flight,  at  the  end  of  the  ninth  century,  B.  C., 
and  we  hear  nothing  of  its  internal  state  till  the  reign  of  Elulaeus,  the 
contemporary  of  Shalmaneser."  In  fact  we  have  nothing  authentic  for 
the  early  period  but  the  fragments  of  Menander,  and  these  fail  us  en 
tirely  from  the  reign  of  Pygmalion  to  that  of  Elulams. 


NOTE  XXXI.,  p.  114. 

See  Euseb.  Chronica,  i.  4  ;  p.  18,  ed.  Mai.      "After  these,  he  says 
there  was  a  king  of  the  Chaldacans  whose  name  was  Pul." 


NOTE  XXXII.,  p.  114. 

In  2  Kings  xv.  19,  the  LXX.  interpreters  render  Pul  by  Phua,  (3>ov6,~) 
where  the  terminal  a  is  probably  a  false  reading  arising  out  of  the 
resemblance  of  A  to  A.  In  1  Chron.  v.  26,  the  reading  of  the  Vatican 
and  most  MSS.  is  tfaAw^,  but  some  copies  have 

28 


326  NOTES.  LECT.  IV. 


NOTE  XXXm.,  p.  115. 

A  full  account  of  this  inscription,  first  deciphered  by  Sir  H.  Raw- 
linson,  will  be  found  in  the  Athenaeum,  No.  1476,  p.  174.  A  general 
summary  of  its  contents  is  given  in  the  author's  Herodotus,  vol.  i. 
p.  467. 

NOTE  XXXIV.,  p.  115. 
See  Sir  H.  Rawlinson's  letter  in  the  Athenaum,  1.  s.  c. 

NOTE  XXXV.,  p.  116. 

The  conjunction  of  Rezin  with  Pekah,  and  the  capture  and  destruc 
tion  of  Damascus,  which  are  noted  in  the  inscription,  seem  to  prove 
that  it  is  the  second  expedition  that  is  intended.  Whether  it  be  the 
first,  however,  or  the  second,  the  name  of  Menahem  must  equally  be 
rejected.  (See  2  Kings  xv.  29,  and  xvi.  9.)  It  is  easily  conceivable, 
that,  if  the  sculptor  had  been  accustomed  to  engrave  the  royal  annals, 
and  had  often  before  entered  the  name  of  Menahem  as  that  of  the  Samar 
itan  king,  he  might  engrave  it  here  in  his  haste,  without  consulting  his 
copy.  Or  possibly,  Pekah  may  have  taken  the  name  of  Menahem,  to 
connect  himself  with  the  dynasty  which  he  had  displaced. 

NOTE  XXXVI.,  p.  117. 

The  older  interpreters,  as  Keil  remarks,1  proceeding  on  the  supposi 
tion  that  the  altar  was  Syrian,  and  dedicated  to  the  Syrian  gods,  en 
deavored  to  answer  the  question  why  Ahaz  chose  the  gods,  not  of  the 
victorious  Assyrians,  but  of  the  vanquished  Syrians  —  a  question  to 
which  it  was  very  difficult  to  give  a  satisfactory  reply.  Among  recent 
writers,  Bertheau,  (Commentar  ilber  d.  Bilch.  d.  Chronik,  p.  421,  E.  T.,) 
Ewald,  (Geschichte  des  Volkes  Israel,  vol.  iii.  pp.  325,  326,)  and  Vance 
Smith,  (Prophecies  concerning  Assyria,  p.  27,)  follow  the  old  view. 
Keil  himself  regards  the  question  as  unimportant,  since  he  supposes 
that  no  idolatrous  rites  or  ideis  were  connected  with  the  altar.  Ahaz, 
according  to  his  view,  having  seen  a  pattern  which  he  fancied  better 

1  Commentar  Vber  d.  Bvch.  d.  Konige,  §  2;  vol.  ii.  p.  45,  E.  T. 


LECT.  IV.  NOTES.  327 

than  that  of  Solomon's  altar,  adopted  it ;  and  his  sin  was  "  a  silly  will- 
worship."     (So  Buddaeus,  Hist.  Eccles.,  vol.  ii.  p.  428.) 

NOTE  XXXVIL,  p.  117. 

See  the  great  inscription  of  Tiglath-Pileser  I.,  pp.  30,  38,  40,  44,  48, 
&c. ;  and  compare  the  author's  Herodotus,  vol.  i.  p.  495. 

NOTE  XXXVHI.,  p.  117. 

Josephus  says  of  Shalmaneser  :  "The  name  of  this  king  is  inscribed 
in  the  archives  of  the  Tyrians.  For  he  made  an  expedition  against 
Tyre,  when  Eluleus  was  king  over  them.  To  this  we  have  the  testi 
mony  of  Menander,  who  wrote  an  account  of  their  chronicles,  and 
translated  their  archives  into  the  Greek  language."  (Antiq.  Jud., 
ix.  14.) 

NOTE  XXXIX.,  p.  117. 
See  the  author's  Herodotus,  vol.  i.  p.  471,  note  7. 

NOTE  XL.,  p.  117. 
Ibid.  p.  472. 

NOTE  XLL,  p.  118. 

Scripture  states  that  Shalmaneser  "came  up  against  Hoshea,"  and 
besieged  Samaria,  (2  Kings  xviii.  9  ;)  but  Scripture  nowhere  expressly 
states  that  Shalmaneser  took  the  city.  "The  king  of  Assyria,"  it  is 
said  in  one  place,  "  took  it,"  (ib.  xvii.  6 ;)  in  another,  "they  (i.  e.  the 
Assyrians)  took  it,"  (ib.  xviii.  10.)  That  Shalmaneser  was  the  captor 
is  only  an  inference  from  Scripture  —  a  natural  inference  undoubtedly, 
but  not  a  necessary  one. 

NOTE  XLIL,  p.  118. 

Sargon  has  been  identified  with  Shalmaneser  by  Vitringa,  Offenhaus, 
Pridcaux,  Eichhorn,  Ilupfeld,  Gumpach,  and  M.  Niebuhr  ; J  with  Sen 
nacherib  by  Grotius,  Lowth,  Keil,  and  Schroer ;  with  Esarhaddon  by 
Perizonius,  Kalinsky,  and  Michaelis.  (See  Winer's  RealwOrterbuch,  ad 

1  Oeschichte  Assure  und  Babels  seit  Phul,  p.  ICO. 


328  NOTES.  LECT.  IV. 

voc.  Sargon.)  His  separate  personality  is  now  generally  admitted. 
(See  Brandis,  Rerum  Assyriarum  Tempora  Emendata,  p.  64,  and  Tab. 
Chron.  ad  fin.  Oppert,  Rapport  d'une  Mission  Scientifique  en  Angkterre, 
p.  38  ;  Vance  Smith,  Prophecies,  &c.,  pp.  31,  32  ;  Ewald,  Geschichte  des 
Volkes  Israel,  vol.  iii.  pp.  333,  334 ;  Layard,  Nineveh  and  Babylon,  pp. 
618-620,  &c.) 

NOTE  XLIH.,  p.  118. 

See  Sir  H.  Rawlinson's  Commentary  on  the  Inscriptions  of  Babylonia 
and  Assyria,  p.  19,  note  2,  where  a  passage  proving  this  is  quoted  from 
Yaciit,  the  famous  Arabian  geographer. 

NOTE  XLIV.,  p.  118. 

See  the  author's  Herodotus,  vol.  i.  p.  473,  note  4 ;  and  compare  Vance 
Smith's  Prophecies,  &c.,  p.  35. 

NOTE  XLV.,  p.  119. 

"When  Sargon  took  Ashdod,  its  king  (he  tells  us)  fled  to  Muzr, 
(Mizraim  or  Egypt,)  which  was  subject  to  Mirukha,  (MeroS  or  Ethio 
pia.)  See  the  author's  Herodotus,  vol.  i.  p.  474. 

NOTE  XL VI.,  p.  119. 
Ibid.  p.  473. 

NOTE  XL VII.,  p.  120. 

The  translation  in  the  text  has  been  read  by  Sir  H.  Rawlinson  before  * 
various  Societies  and  Public  Meetings  ;  but  it  has  remained,  I  believe, 
hitherto  unpublished.     It  will  be  found  to  agree  in  all  important  points 
with  Dr.  Hincks's  version,  as  given  by  Mr.  Layard,  (Nineveh  and  Baby 
lon,  pp.  143,  144.) 

NOTE  XL VIII.,  p.  121. 

Mr.  Layard  gives  a  slightly  different  explanation,  (Nin.  and  Bab.,  p. 
145  :)  "  There  is  a  difference  of  500  talents,  as  it  will  be  observed,  in 
the  amount  of  silver.  It  is  probable  that  Hezekiah  was  much  pressed 
by  Sennacherib,  and  compelled  to  give  him  all  the  wealth  that  he  could 


LECT.  IV.  NOTES.  329 

collect,  as  we  find  him  actually  taking  the  silver  from  the  house  of  the 
Lord,  as  well  as  from  his  own  treasury,  and  cutting  off  the  gold  from 
the  doors  and  pillars  of  the  temple  to  satisfy  the  demands  of  the  Assyr 
ian  king.  The  Bible  may  therefore  only  include  the  actual  amount  of 
money  in  the  300  talents  of  silver,  whilst  the  Assyrian  records  comprise 
all  the  precious  metal  taken  away." 

NOTE  XLIX.,  p.  121. 

Herodot.  ii.  141.  This  testimony  was  first  adduced  by  Josephus, 
(Ant.  Jud.  x.  1,)  from  whom  it  passed  on  to  the  Christian  commenta 
tors  generally.  The  "chief  difficulty"  in  reconciling  Herodotus  with 
Scripture  has  been  generally  said  to  be  the  scene  of  the  destruction. 
(Sec  Joseph.  1.  s.  c.,  Prideaux's  Connection  of  Sacred  and  Profane  His 
tory,  vol.  i.  p.  18  ;  M.  Nicbuhr's  Geschichte  Assurs  und  Babels,  p.  179 ; 
Vance  Smith's  Prophecies  relating  to  Assyria,  Introduction,  p.  43.)  It 
has  been  commonly  assumed  that  the  scene  was  the  immediate  neigh 
borhood  of  Jerusalem  ;  but  this  assumption  is  not  only,  as  Mr.  Vance 
Smith  has  shown,  (Prophecies,  &c.,  p.  213,)  without  warrant  from 
Scripture,  but  it  is  actually  contradictory  to  Scripture.  God's  promise 
to  Ilezekiah  through  Isaiah  was  :  "He  (Sennacherib)  shall  not  come 
into  this  city,  nor  shoot  an  arrow  there,  nor  come  before  it  with  shield, 
nor  cast  a  bank  against  it.  By  the  way  that  he  came,  by  the  same  shall 
he  return,  and  shall  not  come  into  this  city,  saith  the  Lord,"  (2  Kings, 
xix.  32,  33  ;  compare  Is.  xxxvii.  33,  34.) 


NOTE  XLIX.  b.,  p.  121. 

Eusebius  says  of  Polyhistor — "Having  already  described  the  rest 
of  the  acts  of  Senechcrim,  he  adds,  that  he  lived  [as  king]  18  years. 
.  .  .  until  he  was  destroyed  by  a  plot  formed  against  him  by  his  son 
Ardumazan."  (Chronica,  i.  5 ;  p.  1§,  ed.  Mai.) 

Abydenus  gives  the  name  of  one  of  the  murderers  more  correctly, 
but  represents  the  murder  as  committed,  not  on  Sennacherib,  but  on 
his  successor.  "  Next  after  him  (i.  e.  Sennacherib)  reigned  Nergil, 
whom  his  son  Adramelcch  slew ;  and  he  in  his  turn  was  slain  by  his 
brother  Axerdis."  (Esar-haddon  ?)  (Ap.  Euseb.  Chronica,  i.  9,  p.  25.) 

28* 


330  NOTES.  LECT.  IV. 

NOTE  L.,  p.  122. 

Both  Sennacherib  and  Esarhaddon  led  hostile  expeditions  into 
Armenia,  which  appears  to  have  been  at  no  time  thoroughly  subjected 
by  the  Assyrian  monarchs.  (See  the 'author's  Herodotus,  vol.  i.  pp. 

478-481.) 

NOTE  LI.,  p.  122. 

Mos.  Choren.  i.  22:  "When  his  sons,  Adrammelech  and  Sanasar, 
had  slain  him,  (i.  e.  Senacharim,)  they  fled  to  us.  One  of  whom, 
Sanasar,  our  most  illustrious  ancestor  Sacordius  placed  near  the  borders 
of  Assyria,  in  that  part  of  our  country  which  lies  between  the  west  and 
south  ;  and  his  descendants  .  .  .  filled  .  .  .  that  mountain."  But  Ar- 
gamozan  obtained  a  settlement  in  the  same  region,  between  the  East 
and  the  South.  From  him  this  historian  (Mar- Abas)  reports  that  the 
Arzerunii  and  the  Genunii  were  descended. 

NOTE  LIL,  p.  122. 

Esarhaddon  in  his  inscriptions  frequently  speaks  of  Sennacherib  as 
his  father.  (See  Fox  Talbot,  Assyrian  Texts  translated,  p.  13,  and  else 
where.)  The  relationship  is  also  witnessed  to  by  Polyhistor,  following 
Berosus.  (Ap.  Euseb.  Chron.  i.  v.  p.  19  ;  compare  p.  20,  where  Euse- 
bius  says,  «•  Having  gone  through  with  all  this,  Polyhistor  proceeds 
anew  to  relate  some  of  the  acts  of  Senecherib  also ;  and  concerning  his 
son  he  writes  in  quite  the  same  manner  as  the  books  of  the  Hebreios." 

NOTE  LIIL,  p.  122. 

Abydenus  interpolates  a  reign  between  Sennacherib  and  Esarhaddon, 
which  he  assigns  to  a  certain  Nergilus,  of  whom  no  other  trace  is  to  be 
found.  Nergal  was  one  of  the  Assyrian  deities,  (2  Kings  xvii.  30  ;  and 
see  the  author's  Herodotus,  vol.  i.  pp.  631-633;  compare  also  Dublin 
Univ.  Mag.,  (Oct.  1853,  p.  420,)  and  cannot  therefore  have  been  a  king's 
name.  The  Assyrian  royal  names  contain  most  commonly  a  god's  name 
as  an  element,  but  are  never  identical  with  the  names  of  deities.  It 
was  otherwise  in  Phoenicia,  where  Baal  and  Astartus  were  monarchs. 
The  account  of  Abydenus  seems  therefore  unworthy  of  credit. 

NOTE  LIV.,  p.  122. 

"Manassefa,  *£ing  of  Judah,"  is  mentioned  among  the  subject  princes, 
lent  Esarhaddon  workmen  for  the  building  and  ornamentation  of 


LECT.  IV.  NOTES.  331 

his  palaces.  (See  the  author's  Herodotus,  vol.  i.  p.  483.)  It  is  not  sur 
prising  that  we  have  no  account  of  the  expedition  against  Manasseh, 
since  we  do  not  possess  the  annals  of  Esarhaddon,  but  only  some  occa 
sional  inscriptions. 

NOTE  LV.,  p.  123. 

The  Assyrians  ordinarily  governed  Babylon  through  native  viceroys. 
(See  Berosus,  Fr.  12  ;  and  the  inscriptions,  passim.')  But  Esarhaddon 
appears  to  have  reigned  there  in  his  own  person.  Bricks  found  on  the 
site  of  Babylon  show  that  he  repaired  temples  and  built  himself  a 
palace  there.  Consequently  in  the  authentic  list  of  Babylonian  kings 
preserved  by  Ptolemy,  (JMagn.  Syntax,  v.  14,)  his  name  occurs,  under 
the  Grecized  form  of  Asaridinus.  A  Babylonian  tablet  has  been  found, 
dated  by  the  year  of  his  reign  —  a  sure  indication  that  he  was  the  actual 
ruler  of  the  country.  No  similar  facts  can  be  proved  of  any  othei 
Assyrian  monarch.1  (See  the  author's  Herodotus,  vol.  i.  p.  482.) 

NOTE  LVL,  p.  123. 

There  is  one  only  mention  of  Assyria  in  the  historical  Scriptures  later 
than  the  reign  of  Manasseh,  namely,  the  statement  in  2  Kings  xxiii.  29, 
that  in.  the  days  of  Josiah  «« Pharaoh-Necho,  king  of  Egypt,  went  up 
against  the  king  of  Assyria  to  the  river  Euphrates."  If  this  expression 
is  to  be  taken  strictly,  we  must  consider  that  Assyria  maintained  her 
existence  so  late  as  B.  C.  610.  I  believe,  however,  that  the  word 
"  Assyria"  is  here  used,  somewhat  negligently,  for  "  Babylonia."  (Cf. 
Keil,  ad  loc.,  p.  154,  E.  T.,)  and  that  the  Assyrian  empire  was  destroyed 
in  B.  C.  625.  (See  Niebhur,  Vortrage  fiber  Alte  Geschichte,  vol.  i.  p.  47.) 
The  first  clear  indication  which  Scripture  gives  of  the  destruction  is 
found  in  E/ekiel  xxxi.  3-17  —a  passage  written  B.  C.  585.  A  more 
obscure  notification  of  the  event  is  perhaps  contained  in  Jeremiah  xxv. 
15-26,  where  the  omission  of  Assyria  from  the  general  list  of  the  idol 
atrous  nations  would  seem  to  imply  that  she  had  ceased  to  exist.  This 
passage  was  written  about  B.  C.  605. 

i  It  has  been  suggested  by  Dr.  Hincks  and  others  that  the  "  Arceanus  "  of  Ptolemy's 
list  is  Sargon.  But  this  is  a  mere  conjecture  grounded  upon  a  certain  degree  of  resem 
blance  in  the  names.  No  traa-s  of  Sargon  have  been  found  in  Babylonia. 


332  NOTES.  LECT.  IV. 


NOTE  LVIL,  p.  123. 

Compare  Herod,  i.  106  and  178  ;  Ctesias  ap.  Diod.  Sic.  ii.  26-28 ; 
Abydenus  ap.  Euseb.  Chronica,  i.  9,  p.  25  ;  Joseph.  Ant.  Jud.  x.  5.  See 
also  Tobit  xiv.  15. 

NOTE  LYin.,  p.  124. 

The  slight  authority  of  the  present  "pointing"  of  the  Hebrew  text 
is  generally  admitted.  The  pointing  from  which  our  translators  took 
their  rendering  of  " So"  is  &10  ;  if  the  word  were  pointed  thus  —  fc^D 
—  it  would  have  to  be  rendered  by  "  Seveh."  (See  Keil  on  2  Kings 
xvi.  4-G,  pp.  52,  52,  E.  T.  ;  and  compare  the  author's  Herodotus,  vol.  i. 
p.  472,  note  20 

NOTE  LIX.,  p.  124. 

See  Mr.  Birch's  note  in  Layard's  Nineveh  and  Babylon,  ch.  vi.  pp. 
156-159.  Compare  Wilkinson,  in  the  author's  Herodotus,  vol.  ii.  pp. 
217,  218,  and  379  ;  and  Bunsen,  Egypt's  Place,  &c.,  vol.  ii.  p.  597. 

NOTE  LX.,  p.  124. 

Herod,  ii.  137.  Most  moderns  incline  to  the  view  that  the  second 
Shebek  is  the  So  of  Scripture.  (See  Winer's  RealwOrterbuch,  ad  voc. 
So  ;  Keil,  Commentar  liber  die  Bucher  der  KOnige,  1.  s.  c. ;  Layard, 
Nineveh  and  Babylon,  p.  157  ;  Gesenius,  Comment,  in  Jes.,  vol.  i.  p.  696, 
&c.)  The  question  is  one  of  exact  chronology.  Tirhakah,  it  is  argued, 
came  against  Sennacherib  in  the  14th  year  of  Hezekiah,  and  So  made 
a  league  with  Hoshea  in  Hezekiah's  third  or  fourth  year.  This  then 
must  have  been  in  the  reign  of  the  second  Shebek,  to  whom  Manetho 
gave  not  less  than  12  years.  (See  Keil,  1.  s.  c.)  But,  in  the  first  place, 
So's  league  cannot  be  fixed  to  Hezekiah's  third  or  fourth  year.  A  space 
of  several  years  may  intervene  between  the  4th  and  5th  verses  of  2  Kings 
xvii.  And,  secondly,  Manetho's  numbers  (as  they  have  come  down 
to  us)  cannot  be  trusted  absolutely.  According  to  them  Tirhakah 
reigned  18  or  20  years.  (Frs.  64  and  65.)  But  the  monuments  dis 
tinctly  assign  him  26  years.  (See  Wilkinson,  in  the  author's  Herodotus, 
vol.  ii.  p.  381.)  They  also  appear  to  fix  his  accession  to  the  year  B.  C. 
690.  The  reign  of  Hoshea  was  from  B.  C.  729  to  B.  C.  721,  and  his 


LECT.  IV.  NOTES.  333 

league  with  the  Egyptians  cannot  have  been  later  than  B.  C.  724. 
This  is  34  years  before  the  accession  of  Tirhakah,  which  is  certainly 
too  long  a  time  to  assign  to  the  second  Shebek.  I  therefore  regard 
the  So  of  Kings  as  Shebek  I. 

The  difficulty  with  respect  to  Tirhakah's  chronology  will  be  consid 
ered  in  Note  LXIV. 

NOTE  LXL,  p.  125. 
See  Mr.  Layard's  Nineveh  and  Babylon,  pp.  156-159. 

NOTE  LXH.,  p.  125. 

Tarcus  is  the  form  given  as  Manetho's  by  Africanus,  Taracus  that 
given  by  Eusebius.  See  the  fragments  of  Manetho,  in  Mailer's  Fr. 
Hist.  Gr.,  vol.  ii.  p.  593;  Frs.  64  and  65.)  The  Hebrew  word  is 
;  the  LXX.  give 


NOTE  LXTIL,  p.  125. 
Strabo,  Geograph.,  i.  3,  §  21  ;  xv.  i.  §  6. 

NOTE  LXIV.,  p.  125. 

This  is  the  reading  of  Sir  Gardner  Wilkinson.  (See  the  author's 
Herodotus,  vol.  ii.  p.  380.)  Bunsen  reads  Taharuka,  (Egypt,  vol.  ii.  p. 
598  ;)  Ilosellini,  Tahraka.  The  consonants,  T,  II,  R,  K,  are  certain, 
but  the  vowels  doubtful. 

If  Tirhakah  did  not  ascend  the  Egyptian  throne  till  B.  C.  690,  how 
(it  may  be  asked)  could  he  be  contemporary  with  Hezekiah,  whose  last 
year  was  about  B.  C.  697,  or  B.  C.  696  ?  And  how,  especially,  could 
he  oppose  Sennacherib,  about  the  middle  of  Hezckiah's  reign,  or  B.  C. 
703  ?  I  venture  to  suggest  that  Tirhakah,  when  he  marched  against 
Sennacherib,  may  not  yet  have  been  king  of  Egypt.  He  is  called 
"king  of  Ethiopia;"  and  he  may  have  ruled  in  Ethiopia,  while  the 
Shebeks,  under  his  protection,  held  Egypt.  I  venture  further  to 
doubt  whether  we  can  fix  the  year  of  Sennacherib's  contact  with 
Tirhakah  from  Scripture.  His  first  invasion  of  Judaea  is  said  to  have 
been  in  Hezekiah's  14th  year,  (2  Kings  xix.  13  ;)  but  it  seems  to  be 
a  second  invasion,  falling  some  years  later,  which  is  described  in  verses 


334  NOTES.  LECT.  IV. 

17  to  36.  In  the  marginal  notes  to  our  Bible,  the  two  invasions  are 
made  to  be  three  years  apart.  But  the  number  three  is  purely  con 
jectural  ;  and  perhaps  thirteen  or  fourteen  is  as  likely.  (See  the 
author's  Herodotus,  p.  479,  notes  1,  2,  and  9.) 


NOTE.  LXV.,  p.  125. 

Fragmenta  Hist.  Gr.,  vol.  ii.  pp.  593,  594  ;    Frs.  66  and  67.     The 
form  used  is  N 


NOTE  LXVL,  p.  125. 


Herodotus  (ii.  158)  uses  the  form  N«wf,  where  the  j  is  the  Greek 
nominative,  and  may  therefore  be  cancelled. 


NOTE  LXVH.,  p.  125. 

Rosellini  expressed  the  monumental  name  by  Neko,  but  M.  Bunseii 
reads  it  Nekau  or  Neku.     (Egypt,  vol.  ii.  pp.  604,  605.) 


NOTE  LXVHI.,  p.  125. 

On  the  frequent  confusion  between  the  names  Migdol 
Mdy<Woi<)  and  Megiddo  On}?::*  Mayf<5<5w,  Mayf&iv,)  see  Dr.  Stanley's  Sinai 
and  Palestine,  p.  375,  note  *.  Herodotus  was  not  acquainted  with  the 
interior  of  Palestine,  or  he  would  have  seen  how  much  more  suited  for 
the  site  of  a  great  battle  was  Megiddo  in  the  plain  of  Esdraelon,  than 
Magdolum  on  the  shores  of  the  Sea  of  Galilee. 

NOTE  LXIX.,  p.  125. 

See  Prideaux's  Connection,  &c.,  vol.  i.  pp.  56,  57  ;  Rennell's  Geography 
of  Herodotus,  pp.  245  and  683  ;  Heeren's  Asiatic  Nations,  vol.  ii.  ch. 
4,  p.  109,  note  2,  E.  T.  ;  Dahlmann's  Life  of  Herodotus,  ch.  iv.  p.  55, 
E.  T. ;  Bahr's  Excursus  on  Herod,  ii.  159,  vol.  i.  pp.  922,  923  ;  Smith's 
Diet,  of  Greek  and  Roman  Geography,  vol.  ii.  p.  17  ;  Keil's  Commentar 
liber  d.  Bitch,  d.  KOnige,  ch.  xxiii.  p.  159,  E.  T. ;  Home's  Introduction, 
vol.  i.  p.  208  ;  and  Kenrick's  Ancient  Egypt,  vol.  ii.  p.  406. 


LECT.  IV.  NOTES.  335 


NOTE  LXX.,  p.  125. 

That  the  Cadytis  of  Herodotus  was  not  Jerusalem,  but  a  town  upon 
the  Syrian  coast,  is  now  generally  admitted  by  scholars,  and  seems  to 
follow  necessarily  from  Herod,  iii.  5.  The  best  authorities  incline  to 
identify  it  with  Gaza,  or  Ghuzzeh,  called  in  the  Assyrian  Inscriptions 
Khazita.  (See  Hitzig,  Disputatio  de  Cadyte  urbe  Herodotea ;  and  compare 
Wilkinson,  in  the  author's  Herodotus,  vol.  ii.  p.  246,  note  2 ;  Ewald, 
Geschichte  des  Volkes  Israel,  vol.  iii.  p.  418,  note  * ;  Sir  H.  Rawlinson, 
Outlines  of  Assyrian  History,  &c.  ;  and  Bertheau,  Commentar  liber  d. 
Bitch,  d.  Chronik,  §  17,  ad  fin. ;  p.  457,  E.  T. 


NOTE  LXXL,  p.  125. 

Africanus  and  Eusebius  both  report  Manetho  to  have  said  of  Necho, 
"This  man  took  Jerusalem,  and  carried  Jehoahaz  the  king  captive  into 
Egypt.  (See  the  fragments  of  Manetho  in  the  Fragm.  Hist.  Gr.,  vol.  ii. 
pp.  593,  594 ;  Frs.  66  and  67.) 


NOTE  LXXH.,  p.  125. 

So  Sir  Gardner  Wilkinson  reads  the  name  on  the  monuments,  (Herod 
otus,  vol.  ii.  p.  248,  note"8.)  Rosellini  read  it  as  Hophre.  M.  Bunsen 
gives  the  strange  form,  Ra-uah-hat,  (Egypt,  vol.  ii.  pp.  604,  605.) 


NOTE  LXXIIL,  p.  125. 

Egyptian  chronology  placed  the  accession  of  Amasis  48  years  before 
that  of  Darius  Hystaspis  ;  for  Amasis,  according  to  the  consentient 
testimony  of  Herodotus,  (iii.  10,)  Manetho,  (ap.  Syncell.  p.  141,  C.,) 
and  the  monuments,  (Wilkinson,  in  the  author's  Herodotus,  vol.  ii.  p. 
387,)  reigned  44  years,  Psammetichus  his  son,  half  a  year ;  Cambyses, 
(in  Egypt,)  3  years,1  and  the  Pseudo-Smerdis  a  little  more  than  half  a 
year.  The  last  year  of  Apries  would  thus  be  the  49th  before  Darius. 
Babylonian  chronology  made  Nebuchadnezzar's  last  year  the  41st  before 
that  king.  (See  the  Canon.)  As  Nebuchadnezzar  reigned  43  years, 

1  Or  six  years.    (Sec  Bun?cn's  Egypt,  vol.  ii.  rp-  61 0>  Gil.) 


336  NOTES.  LECT.  IV. 

and  Apries  only  19,  (or  at  the  utmost  25,)  the  reign  of  the  latter  must 
have  been  entirely  included  within  that  of  the  former.  Nebuchadnezzar 
reigned  from  B.  C.  601  to  B.  C.  561;  Apries,  probably  from  B.  C.  588 
to  B.  C.  569. 

NOTE  LXXIV.,  p.  126. 

Manetho  is  reported  to  have  said  of  Hophra,  (Uaphris,)  that  he  was 
the  king  "  with  whom  the  remnant  of  the  Jews  took  refuge,  after  Jeru 
salem  was  captured  by  the  Assyrians."  (Fragm.  Hist.  Gr.t  vol.  ii.  pp. 
593,  594  ;  Frs.  66  and  67.) 

NOTE  LXXV.,  p.  126. 

Herodotus  was  altogether  misinformed  about  the  rank  and  position 
of  Amasis,  who  (according  to  him)  deposed  Apries  and  put  him  to 
death.  (See  Wilkinson,  in  the  author's  Herodotus,  vol.  ii.  pp.  386,  387.) 
It  is  therefore  less  surprising  that  he  should  have  been  kept  in  igno 
rance  of  the  part  which,  it  is  probable,  Nebuchadnezzar  played  in  the 
transaction.  The  Egyptians  would  naturally  seek  to  conceal  from  him 
the  fact,  that  the  change  of  sovereigns  was  brought  about  by  foreign 
influence.  But  nothing  is  more  unlikely  than  that  they  should  have 
invented  the  deposition  and  execution  of  one  of  their  monarchs.  Thus 
the  passage,  "I  will  deliver  Pharaoh- Hophra  into  the  hands  of  his  ene 
mies,  and  into  the  hands  of  those  who  seek  his  life"  (Jer.  xliv.  30,)  is 
confirmed  by  an  unimpeachable  testimony. 

NOTE  LXXVL,  p.  126. 

M.  Bunsen  was,  I  believe,  the  first  to  suggest  that  the  d  in  this  name 
had  taken  the  place  of  /,  through  the  resemblance  of  A  to  4.  (See  his 
Egypt,  vol.  i.  p.  726.)  The  restoration  of  the  I  brings  the  two  names 
into  close  accordance,  the  only  difference  then  being  that  in  the  Greek 
form  one  of  the  original  elements  of  the  name,  adan  or  iddan,  is  sup 
pressed.  Such  suppression  is  not  uncommon.  It  may  be  traced  in  Pul 
for  Phaloch,  in  Bupalussor  for  Nabopolassar,  (Abydeii.,)  in  Asaridanus 
for  Assur-aM -iddan  or  Esar-7^addon,  and  probably  in  Saracus  for 
Assur-akh-uzur,  or  some  similar  word. 

The  identity  of  the  Mardocempadus  of  the  Canon  with  the  Marduk- 
bal-iddan  of  the  Inscriptions  is  certain ;  and  no  reasonable  doubt  can 


LECT.  IV.  NOTES.  337 

be  entertained  of  the  identity  of  the  latter  with  the  Merodach-Baladan 
of  Scripture.  These  views  are  now  generally  accepted.  (See  Brandis, 
Renim  Assyr.  Temp,  emend.,  p.  45  ;  Oppert,  Rapport,  &c.,  pp.  48,  49  ; 
Ilincks  in  DubL  Univ.  May.,  No.  250,  p.  421 ;  Layard,  Nineveh  and 
Babylon,  p.  140  ;  Keil  on  2  Kings  xx.  12-19 ;  p.  118,  E.  T. ;  &c.) 

NOTE  LXXVIL,  p.  126. 

Merodach-Baladan  had  two  reigns,  both  noted  in  the  Inscriptions. 
One  of  them  is  marked  in  Ptolemy's  Canon,  where  it  occupies  the  years 
B.  C.  721-709.  His  other  reign  does  not  appear,  since  it  lasted  but  six 
months,  and  the  Canon  marks  no  period  short  of  a  year.  Polyhistor 
says  (ap.  Euseb.  Chronica,  i.  5)  that  it  immediately  preceded  the  reign 
of  Elibus  or  Belibus,  and  the  Inscriptions  show  that  it  was  in  the  earlier 
part  of  the  same  year.  This  was  the  year  B.  C.  702,  according  to  the 
Canon.  As  Hezekiah  appears  to  have  reigned  from  about  B.  C.  726  to 
B.  C.  697,  both  reigns  of  Merodach-Baladan  would  have  fallen  within 
the  time  of  his  rule.  (See  the  author's  Herodotus,  vol.  i.  pp.  502-504.) 

NOTE  LXXVIIL,  p.  126. 
Fragm.  Hist.  Gr.,  vol.  ii.  p.  504 ;  Fr.  12. 

NOTE  LXXIX.,  p.  126. 

Sargon  relates,  that  in  his  twelfth  year  he  made  war  upon  Merodach- 
Baladan,  who  had  been  for  twelve  years  king  of  Babylon,  defeated  him, 
and  drove  him  out  of  the  country.  The  expelled  monarch  took  refuge 
in  Susiana,  with  a  number  of  his  partisans  ;  and  Sargon  continued  to 
contend  against  him  and  his  allies  for  three  years  more  at  the  least. 
(See  the  author's  Herodotus,  vol.  i.  pp.  474  and  503.)  Sennacherib 
says,  that  immediately  after  his  accession  he  invaded  Babylonia,  de 
feated  and  expelled  Merodach-Baladan,  and  placed  Belib  over  the  land 
as  ruler.  (Ibid.  p.  476  ;  Fox  Talbot's  Assyrian  Texts,  pp.  1-2.) 

NOTE  LXXX.,  p.  127. 

The  Babylonian  Gods  may  be  to  a  great  extent  identified  with  the 
heavenly  bodies.  San  «r  Sansi  is  the  Sun  ;  Hurki,  the  Moon  ;  Nebo  is 
Mercury  ;  Ishtar,  Venus ;  Nergal,  Mars  ;  Merodach,  Jupiter  ;  and  proba- 

29 


338  NOTES.  LECT.  IV. 

bly  A7n  (or  Bar)  Saturn.  (See  the  Essay  of  Sir  H.  Rawlinson  on  the 
Assyrian  and  Babylonian  religious  systems,  in  the  first  volume  of  the 
author's  Herodotus,  Essay  x.  pp.  584-642.)  The  dedication  of  the  great 
temple  at  Borsippa  to  the  Seven  Spheres  shows  a  similar  spirit.  Mr. 
Loftus  has  found  that  the  temple  platforms  are  so  placed  that  their  an 
gles  exactly  face  the  four  cardinal  points,  which  seems  to  be  a  sufficient 
proof  that  they  were  used  for  astronomical  purposes.  (See  his  Chaldcea, 
and  Susiana,  ch.  xii.  p.  128.)  On  the  astronomical  skill  of  the  Babylo 
nians,  see  Herod,  ii.  109  ;  Simplicius  ad  Aristot.  De  Ccelo,  ii.  p.  123  ; 
Pliny,  Hist.  Nat.  vii.  56 ;  Yitruvius,  ix.  9,  &c. 

NOTE  LXXXL,  p.  127. 

Berosus  said:  ""When  Nabopolassar  his  father  (i.  e.  the  father  of 
Nebuchadnezzar)  heard  that  the  Satrap  appointed  over  Egypt  and  the 
regions  of  Coele- Syria  and  Phcenice  had  rebelled  against  him,  being  no 
longer  able  himself  to  endure  hardship,  he  intrusted  a  certain  portion  of 
his  army  to  his  son  Nebuchadnezzar,  who  was  of  age,  and  sent  him 
against  the  rebel.  Nebuchadnezzar,  meeting  the  rebel,  and  engaging 
in  battle  with  him,  was  victorious,  and  reduced  the  rebellious  country 
into  subjection  to  himself.  .  .  .  Not  long  after,  Nebuchadnezzar,  having 
heard  of  the  death  of  his  father,  when  he  had  settled  the  affairs  of  Egypt 
and  the  adjacent  region,  and  had  arranged  with  certain  of  his  friends  to 
bring  to  Babylon  the  captives  of  the  Jews,  and  Phoenicians  and  Syrians 
and  nations  near  Egypt,  came  himself,  with  great  haste  and  with  a 
small  company,  through  the  wilderness  to  Babylon."  (Ap.  Joseph. 
Ant.  Jud.  x.  11.) 

NOTE  LXXXIL,  p.  127. 

See  Josephus,  Contra  Apion.,  i.  21  :  "I  Avill  add  also  the  records  of  the 
Phoenicians  ;  for  even  the  superabundance  of  proofs  ought  not  to  be 
omitted.  This  is  the  reckoning  of  the  time.  <  Under  the  king  Ithoba- 
lus,  Nebuchadnezzar  besieged  Tyre  for  thirteen  years.'  " 

NOTE  LXXXIII.,  p.  127. 

In  continuation  of  the  passage  cited  in  Note  LXXXL,  Berosus  said: 
"  Assuming  the  administration  of  affairs,  which  had  been  under  the 


LECT.  IV.  NOTES.  339 

management  of  the  Chaldaeans,  and  the  kingdom  which  had  been  kept 
for  him  by  the  most  eminent  one  among  them,  he  succeeded  to  all  his 
father's  dominion ;  and  when  the  captives  arrived,  he  appointed  colo 
nies  for  them  in  the  most  suitable  parts  of  Babylonia." 

NOTE  LXXXIV.,  p.  128. 

The  chief  chronological  difficulty  which  meets  us  is  connected  with 
the  reign  of  Hezekiah.  Scripture  places  no  more  than  eight  years 
between  the  fall  of  Samaria  and  the  first  invasion  of  Judaea  by  Senna 
cherib,  (2  Kings  xviii.  9  and  13.)  The  monuments  place  at  least  eigh 
teen  years  between  the  two  events ;  for  Sargon  says  he  took  Samaria  in 
his  first  year,  and  then  gives  his  annals  for  fifteen  years,  while  Senna 
cherib  says  that  he  attacked  Hezekiah  and  took  his  fenced  cities  in  his 
third  year.  Ptolemy's  Canon,  taken  in  conjunction  with  the  monu 
ments,  raises  the  interval  to  twenty-two  years.  According  to  this,  if 
the  capture  of  Samaria  was  in  Hezekiah's  sixth  year,  the  accession  of 
Sennacherib  must  have  fallen  in  his  twenty- fifth,  and  the  first  attack  of 
Sennacherib  in  his  27th  year.  But  our  present  text  of  Kings  (2  Kings 
xviii.  9)  and  of  Isaiah  (xxxvi.  1)  calls  it  his  14th  year.  I  have  sug 
gested  elsewhere  that  the  original  number  may  have  been  altered  under 
the  idea  that  the  invasion  of  Sennacherib  and  the  illness  of  Hezekiah 
•were  synchronous,  whereas  the  expression  "in  those  days"  was  used 
by  the  sacred  writers  with  a  good  deal  of  latitude.  (See  the  author's 
Herodotus,  vol.  i.  p.  479,  note  2.) 

Minor  difficulties  are  the  synchronism  of  Tirhakah  with  Hezekiah, 
and  of  So  with  Hoshea,  of  which  I  have  already  spoken.  See  Notes 
LIX.  and  LXIV. 

NOTE  LXXXV.,  p.  128. 
Vortrttge  ilber  Alte  Geschichte,  vol.  i.  p.  126 ;  p.  106,  E.  T. 

NOTE  LXXXVL,  p.  128. 

A  few  instances  may  be  noted  under  each  head,  as  specimens  of  the 
sort  of  agreement. 

1.  Geographic,  (a)  In  2  Kings  xvii.  G  (compare  xviii.  11)  it  is  said 
that  the  captive  Israelites  were  placed  by  the  conqueror  "  at  Halah  and 


340  NOTES.  LECT.  IV. 

Habor,  the  river  of  Gozan,  and  in  the  cities  of  the  Medes."  Misled  by 
the  last  clause,  various  commentators  have  struggled  vainly  to  find 
Habor,  Halah,  and  Gozan  in  or  near  Media.  (See  Bochart,  Geograph. 
Sac.,  iii.  14  ;  Kitto,  Bibl.  Cyclopedia,  ad  voc.  Gozan  ;  Keil  on  2  Kings 
xvii.  6  ;  pp.  54-58,  E.  T.,  &c.)  But  this  attempt  is  quite  unnecessary. 
The  true  position  of  Gozan  may  be  gathered  from  2  Kings  xix.  12, 
•where  it  is  coupled  with  Haran,  the  well-known  city  of  Mesopotamia. 
In  this  locality  all  the  names  may  be  found,  not  only  in  old  geographers, 
but  even  at  the  present  day.  The  whole  tract  east  of  Harran  about 
Nisibis,  was  anciently  called  Gauzanitis  or  Gozan,  (Ptolemy,  v.  18,)  of 
which  the  better  known  name  Mygdonia  is  a  corruption  ;  !  the  great 
river  of  this  tract  was  the  Aborrhas  or  Chaboras,  (Habor  ;)  and  adjoin 
ing  it  (Ptol.  1.  s.  c.)  was  a  district  called  Chalcitis,  (Halah.)  Of  this 
district  a  probable  trace  remains  in  the  modern  Gla,  a  large  mound  in 
these  parts  marking  a  ruined  city,  (Layard,  Nin.  and  Bab.,  p.  312, 
note  ;)  while  the  river  is  still  known  as  the  Khabour,  and  the  country 
as  Kaushan.2  The  author  of  Chronicles  (1  Chron.  v.  26)  adds  Hara  to 
the  places  mentioned  -in  Kings,  which  is  clearly  Haran,  or  Harran, 
known  to  the  Romans  as  Carrh&.  Undoubtedly  the  bulk  of  the  Isra 
elites  were  settled  in  this  country,  while  Sargon  selected  a  certain  num 
ber  to  colonize  his  new  cities  in  Media.  (b~)  In  2  Kings  xvii.  24, 
Cuthah,  Ava,  Hamath,  and  Sepharvaim  are  mentioned  together  as 
cities  under  the  Assyrian  dominion,  and  as  furnishing  the  colonists  who 
replaced  the  transplanted  Israelites.  Of  these  Hamath  is  familiar  to  us, 
but  of  the  other  cities  little  has  been  known  till  recently.  "The  site 
of  Cutha,"  says  Winer,3  "is  wholly  uncertain."  And  so  Keil:4 
"The  situation  of  Cuthah  cannot  be  determined  with  certainty  "  The 
discovery,  however,  of  an  ancient  Babylonian  city  of  the  name,  at  the 
distance  of  about  15  miles  from  Babylon  itself,  where,  moreover,  Nergal 
was  especially  worshipped,  (2  Kings  xvii.  30,)  seems  to  remove  all 
doubt  on  the  subject.  Cuthah  was  most  certainly  the  city,  whose  ruins 

1  Mygdonia  represents  Gozan,  with  the  adjectival  or  participial  fa  prefixed.  The 
Greek  writers  always  substituted  their  J  for  the  Semitic  z.  Hence  Gaza  became  Cudyti?, 
Achzib  became  Ecdippa,  the  river  Zab  became  the  .Diaba;  and  so  M'gozan  became 


2  So  at  least  Winer  says,  but  I  do  not  know  on  what  authority.     (Realworterbuch, 
ad  voc.  Oosart.) 

3  Realwortcrbuch,  vol.  i.  p.  237. 

*  See  Keil  on  2  Kings  xvii.  21;  vol.  ii.  p.  67,  E.  T. 


LECT.  IV.  NOTES.  341 

are  now  called  Ibrahim.  (See  the  author's  Herodotus,  vol.  i.  p.  632, 
and  vol.  ii.  p.  587.)  With  almost  equal  confidence  may  we  pronounce 
on  the  position  of  Ava,  of  which  Winer  says,  that  it  is  most  probably  a 
Mesopotamian  town,  "  of  which  no  trace  remains  in  ancient  authors  or 
in  modern  Oriental  topography."1  Ava,  (M2,)  or  Ivah,  (&^5,)  is  a  city 
dedicated  to  the  god  Ilea,  (Neptune,)  which  was  on  the  Euphrates  at 
the  extreme  northern  limit  of  Babylonia.  It  is  called  by  the  Talmudi- 
cal  writers  Ihi,  (ij-p»)  or  with  an  epithet  Ihi-dakira,  (sO^pT%T%)  ^°J 
Herodotus  Is,  ("If,)  by  the  Egyptians  1st,  by  the  Turks  and  Arabs  of 
the  present  day  Hit.  The  first  corruption  of  the  name  may  be  traced 
in  the  Ahava  (JOn&O  of  Ezra,  (viii.  15,  21  ;  compare  the  river  Is  of 
Herodotus,)  where  the  Jews  encamped  on  their  way  from  Babylon  to 
Jerusalem.  (See  the  remarks  of  Sir  H.  Rawliiison  in  the  author's 
Herodotus,  vol.  i.  p.  602.)  Sepharvaim  has  less  completely  baffled  the 
geographers,  who  have  seen  that  it  must  be  identical  with  the  Sippara 
or  Sipphara  of  Ptolemy  (v.  18)  and  the  city  of  the  Sipparenes  of  Abv- 
denus,  (Fr.  9.)  See  Winer  and  Kitto  ad  voc.  They  have  not,  how 
ever,  been  able  to  fix  the  site  ;  which  the  Inscriptions  show  to  have 
been  at  Mosaib,  a  town  on  the  Euphrates  between  Hit  and  Babylon. 
Nor  have  they  given  any  account  of  the  dual  form,  Scpharvai/n, 
(a:!]T?  ;)  wnich  is  explained  by  the  fact,  noted  in  the  Inscriptions, 
that  the  city  was  partly  on  the  right,  partly  on  the  left  bank  of  the 
Euphrates,  (c)  With  Sepharvaim  are  connected,  in  2  Kings  xix.  13, 
the  two  cities  of  Ilena  and  Ivah.  It  is  implied  that  they  had  recently 
been  united  under  one  king  :  we  must  seek  them  therefore  in  the  same 
neighborhood.  As  Ivah,  like  Sepharvaim,  was  upon  the  Euphrates 
above  Babylon,  and  as  the  towns  in  this  tract  have  always  been 
clustered  along  the  panics  of  the  streams,  we  must  look  for  Ilena 
(Heb.  2:n ;  LXX.  'Aio)  in  a  similar  position.  Now  on  the  Euphrates 
in  this  region  is  found  in  the  Inscriptions  an  important  town,  Anah  or 
Anat ;  which  has  always  borne  nearly  the  same  name,  and  which  is 
even  now  known  as  Anah.  Ilena  is  thus  identified  almost  to  a  cer 
tainty. 

2.  Religious.  («)  The  worship  of  Baal  and  Astarte  by  the  Phoeni 
cians,  almost  to  the  exclusion  of  other  gods,  is  strongly  suggested  by 
the  whole  history  from  Judges  to  Ahaz.  (See  Jud.  x.  6  ;  1  Kings  xi, 

i  Rcahrtrterbuch,  vol.  i.  p.  118. 
29* 


842  NOTES.  LECT.  IV. 

5  ;  xvi.  31,  &c.)  A  marked  confirmation  of  this  exclusive,  or  nearly 
exclusive,  worship  is  found  in  the  names  of  the  Tyrian  kings  and  judges, 
which,  like  those  of  the  Assyrian  and  Babylonian  monarchs,  compre 
hend  almo.st  always  a  divine  element.  Their  names,  so  far  -as  they 
are  known,  run  as  follows  :  Abi&aa/,  Hiram,  JSa/eazar,  Abdastartus, 
Astarttts,  Aserymus,  Pheles,  Eth&aa/,  J3a/ezar,  Matgen,  Pygmalion, 
Elulaeus,  l&th-baal  II.,  Baal,  Ecni&aa/,  Chelbes,  Abbarus,  Mytgon, 
.Be^-ator,  Gerastartus,  Merfia/,  and  Hiram  II.  Farther  confirmation  is 
derivable  from  the  few  authentic  notices  of  the  religion  which  remain, 
as  from  the  fragments  of  Dius  and  Menander,  where  these  two  are  the 
only  deities  mentioned. '  (ft)  It  has  been  already  noticed  that  Nergal, 
who  is  said  to  have  been  worshipped  by  the  Cuthites  in  Samaria, 
(2  Kings  xvii.  30,)  is  found  in  the  inscriptions  to  have  been  the  special 
god  of  Cutha.  (c)  So  too  it  appears  from  them  that  the  city  of  Sephar- 
vaim  was  under  the  special  protection  of  two  deities,  conjointly  wor 
shipped,  Shamas  or  San,  the  Sun,  and  his  wife  Gula  or  Anunit.  Here 
we  have  evidently  the  Adrammelech  and  Anammelech  of  2  Kings  xvii. 
31;  Adrammelech,  "the  Fire-king,"  and  Anammelech,  "Queen  Anu 
nit  "  —  the  latter  name  being  assimilated  to  the  former  with  insolent 
carelessness.  (See  Sir  II.  Rawlinsou  in  the  author's  Herodotus,  vol.  f. 
pp.  611,  612.)  (d)  If  a  satisfactory  explanation  cannot  be  given  from 
Babylonian  mythology  of  Succoth-Benoth,  Nibhaz,  and  Tartak,  (2  Kings 
xvii.  30,  31,)  it  is  probably  because  they  are  not  really  the  names  of 
Babylonian  gods.  The  first  seems  to  mean  "  tents  of  daughters,"  or 
small  tabernacles  in  which  were  contained  images  of  female  deities. 
The  second  and  third  are  most  likely  scornful  modifications  of  certain 
Babylonian  names,  which  I  should  suspect  to  have  been-Nebo  and  Tir 
—  the  latter  a  title  by  which  Nebo  was  8ometimesf%alled,  Or  they  may 
possibly  be  gods  which  have  yet  to  bo  discovered. 

3.  Manners,  customs,  &c.  («)  The  whole  character  of  the  Assyrian 
wars,  as  represented  in  Kings  and  Chronicles,  is  in  close  accordance 
with  what  we  gather  from  the  Inscriptions.  The  numerical  force  of 
their  armies,  the  direction  of  them  by  the  monarch  in  person,  the  mul 
titude  of  their  chariots,  (2  Kings  xix.  23,)  their  abundant  cavalry, 

*  Mr.  Ke-ttrLck  gives  the  Phoenicians  three  "national  deities,"  Astarte,  Belus,  Her 
cules.  (Phoenicia;  p.  345.)  But  Movers  has  shown  satisfactorily  that  Melcarth  (the 
Tyrian  Hercules)  wa£#nly  another  name  for  Baal. 


LECT.  IV.  NOTES.  343 

(2  Kings  xviii.  23,)  their  preference  of  the  bow  as  a  weapon,1  (ib.  xix. 
32,)  the  manner  of  their  sieges  by  "casting  banks"  against  the  walls 
of  cities,2  (ibid.,)  and  again  the  religious  enthusiasm  with  which  the 
wars  were  carried  on,  the  antagonism  maintained  between  the  Assyrian 
gods  and  those  of  the  invaded  countries,  (2  Kings  xviii.  33,  34,  &c.,) 
and  the  practice  of  carrying  off  as  plunder,  and  therefore  probably  of 
melting  down,  the  idols  of  the  various  nations,  (2  Kings  xix.  18,)  are 
all  distinctly  marked  in  the  sacred  history,  and  might  be  abundantly 
illustrated  from  the  monuments.3  (6)  No  less  harmonious  with  Scrip 
ture  is  the  representation  which  the  monuments  give  of  the  Assyrian 
political  system.  Something  has  been  already  said  on  this  point. 
(Lecture  III.,  pp.  94-96.)  The  empire  is  one  made  up  of  a  number 
of  petty  kingdoms.  ("Are  not  my  princes  altogether  kings?  "  Is.  x. 
8.)  Absorption  of  the  conquered  districts  is  not  aimed  at,  but  only 
the  extension  of  suzerainty,  and  government  through  native  tributary 
monarchs.  Rebellion  is  promptly  punished,  and  increased  tribute  is 
its  natural  consequence.  (2  Kings  xviii.  14.)  Finally,  transplantation 
is  made  use  of  when  other  means  fail  —  sometimes  on  a  larger,  some 
times  on  a  smaller  scale,  as  the  occasion  requires.4  (c)  The  continued 
power  of  the  Hittites,  the  number  of  their  princes,  and  their  strength 
in  chariots,  which  appears  from  1  Kings  x.  29,  and  again  remarkably 
from  2  Kings  vii.  6,  is  strikingly  confirmed  by  the  Black  Obelisk  in 
scription,  where  we  find  twelve  kings  of  the  Khatti,  allied  with  Syria 
and  Ilamath,  and  righting  against  the  Assyrians  with  a  force  whose 
chief  strength  seems  to  be  chariots.  Many  similar  points  of  minute 
agreement  might  be  adduced,  but  this  note  has,  I  fear,  already  extended 
itself  beyond  the  patience  of  most  readers. 

1  This  appears  sufficiently  on  the  sc-ilptures  ;  but  it  is  even  more  strikingly  evinced 
in  the  language  of  the  Inscriptions   where  the  phrase  which  has  to  he  translated, 
'•killed  in  battle,"  is  constantly  "killed  -with  arrows"     (See  Dull.  Univ.  Mao-.,  No. 
250,  p.  423.) 

2  See  Layard's  Nineveh  and  Babylon,  p.  149.   Describing  a  bass-relief  of  Sennacherib's, 
he  says,  "Against  the  fortifications  had  been  thrown  up  a*  many  as  ten  banks  or  mounds, 
compactly  built  of  stones,  bricks,  earth,  and  branches  of  trees." 

8  See  the  Great  Inscription  of  Tigla'h  Pilrser  /.,  pp.  23,  30,  38,  Ac. ;  Thill.  Univ. 
Mag.,  No.  250.  pp.  423,  421;  Fox  Talbot's  Assyrian  Texts,  pp.  1,  3,  4,  11,  22,  &c.  Com 
pare  the  author's  Herodotus,  vol.  i.  p.  495. 

4  See  the  author's  Herodotus,  vol.  i.  p.  493. 


344  NOTES.  LECT.  V. 


LECTURE    V. 

NOTE  I.,  p.  131. 
So  Ewald,  Die  Propheten  des  Alien  Bundes,  p.  560. 

NOTE  II.,  p.  131. 

This  is  the  theory  of  De  Wctte  (Einleitung,  §  253,  p.  342  ;  vol.  ii.  p. 
485,  E.  T.,)  Avho  bases  the  view  on  the  passages  of  Ezekiel,  where 
Daniel  is  so  highly  commended.  See  below,  Note  X. 

NOTE  III.,  p.   131. 

See  the  statements  of  Jerome  concerning  Porphyry  in  the  preface  to 
his  Comment,  in  Daniel.  (Op.,  vol.  iii.  pp.  1073,  1074.) 

NOTE  IV.,  p.  131. 

It  is  urged  by  Ewald,  (Propheten  des  Alt.  Bundes,  p.  565  ;)  by  Knobel, 
Prophetismus  der  Hebriter,  ii.  p.  401  ;  by  Strauss,  (Lebcn  Jes^t,  §  13  ;  vol. 
i.  p.  56,  E.  T. ;)  by  De  Wette,  (Einleitung,  §  255  b,  p.  346  ;)  and  by  Mr. 
Theodore  Parker,  (Translation  of  De  Wette,  vol.  ii.  pp.  491  and  501.) 
Hence  Auberlen  observes  with  justice,  "The  true  argument  of  all  others, 
even  in  modern  criticism,  lies  in  the  dogmatic  doubt  of  the  reality  of 
miracles  and  predictions."  (Prophecies  of  Daniel,  Introduction,  p.  10, 
E.  T.1)  And  Stuart,  "  Nearly  all  the  arguments  employed  to  disprove 
the  genuineness  of  Daniel,  have  their  basis,  more  or  less  directly,  in 
the  assumption,  that  miraculous  events  are  impossibilities.  Of  course, 
all  the  extraordinary  occurrences  related  in  the  book  of  Daniel,  and  all 
the  graphic  predictions  of  events,  are,  under  the  guidance  of  this  as 
sumption,  stricken  from  the  list  of  probabilities,  and  even  of  possibili 
ties."  (History  and  Defence  of  the  Canon,  §  4,  pp.  110,  111.) 

i  The  Prophecies  of  Daniel  and  the  Revelation  of  St.  John  viewed  in  their  mutual 
relation  by  C.  A.  Auberlen,  Ph.  D.  Translated  by  the  Rev.  A.  Suphir;  Edinburgh, 
Clnrk.  ISftfl. 


LECT.  V.  NOTES.  345 


NOTE  V.,  p.  132. 

Undoubtedly  a  peculiar  character  attaches  to  the  prophecies  of  Daniel, 
if  they  are  compared  with  those  of  the  other  prophets.  As  Auberlen 
observes,  "  his  prophecies  abound,  above  all  the  rest,  in  historical  and 
political  detail."  (Prophecies  of  Daniel,  Introduction,  p.  3,  E.  T.)  But 
to  make  this  an  objection  to  the  authenticity  of  the  Book  is  to  assume, 
either  that  we  have  an  a  priori  knowledge  of  the  nature  and  limits  of 
prophetical  inspiration,  or  else  that  the  law  of  such  inspiration  may  be 
gathered  inductively  from  the  other  Scriptures,  and  then  applied  to 
exclude  the  claims  of  a  Book  which  has  as  much  external  sanction  as 
any  other.  But  induction  should  be  from  all  the  instances ;  and  to 
exclude  the  Book  of  Daniel  by  a  law  drawn  from  the  rest  of  Scripture, 
is  first  to  assume  that  it  is  not  Scripture,  and  then  to  prove  that  it  is 
not  by  means  of  that  assumption.  We  are  quite  ignorant  beforehand 
to  what  extent  it  might  please  the  Omniscient  to  communicate  to  any 
of  his  creatures  the  knowledge  of  the  future,  which  He  possesses  in 
perfection  ;  and  we  have  no  means  of  determining  the  question  but  by 
a  careful  study  of  all  the  facts  which  the  Bible  sets  before  us.  We 
have  no  right  to  assume  that  there  will  be  a  uniform  law,  much  less 
that  we  shall  be  able  to  discover  it.  It  is  a  principle  of  the  Divine 
Economy  that  "  there  is  a  time  for  every  thing ;  "  and  the  minute  exact 
ness  which  characterizes  some  of  the  Prophecies  of  Daniel  may  have 
been  adapted  to  peculiar  circumstances  in  the  history  of  God's  people 
at  some  particular  time,1  or  have  otherwise  had  some  special  object 
which  we  cannot  fathom. 

NOTE  VI.,  p.  132. 

See  Hengstenberg,  Authentic  des  Daniel,  p.  303,  et  seqq.  The  alter 
nate  use  of  Hebrew  and  Chaldee,  which  is  the  main  linguistic  peculiar 
ity  of  Daniel,  is  only  natural  at  a  time  when  both  languages  were  cur 
rently  spoken  by  the  Jews ;  and  is  only  found  in  writings  of  about  this 
period,  as  in  Ezra  and  Jeremiah.  De  Wette's  answer  to  this  argument, 
that  both  languages  were  known  to  the  learned  Jews  at  a  later  date, 

1  Auberlen  thinks  that  the  minuteness,  which  is  chiefly  in  chs.  viii.  and  xi.,  was 
"  necessary  to  prepare  the  people  for  the  attacks  and  artful  machinations  of  Antiochus," 
and  that  "  the  glorious  struggle  of  the  Maccabees,  so  far  as  it  was  a  pure  and  righteous 
one,  was  a  fruit  of  this  book."  (pp.  54,  55.) 


346  NOTES.  LECT.  V. 

(Einleitung,  $  2-55  c,  p.  349,)  is  a  specimen  of  the  weak  grounds  on  which 
men  are  content  to  rest  a  foregone  conclusion.  The  Hebrew  Scriptures 
were  not  written  for  the  learned ;  and  no  instances  at  all  can  be  found 
of  the  alternate  use,  (as  distinct  from  the  occurrence  of  Chaldaisms  in 
Hebrew,  or  Hebraisms  in  Chaldee,)  excepting  at  the  time  of  the  Cap 
tivity, 

NOTE  VII.,  p.  132. 

I  have  here  followed  the  ordinary  tradition,  which  rests  on  the  au 
thority  of  Aristeas,  Philo,  Justin  Martyr,  Josephus,  Epiphanius,  &c. 
It  is  questioned,  however,  if  the  Greek  version  of  Daniel  was.  made  so 
early.  The  book  of  Esther,  according  to  the  subscription  to  it,  was  not 
translated  till  the  fourth  year  of  Ptolemy  Philometor,  B.  C.  178  or  177, 
a  year  or  two  before  the  accession  of  Epiphanes.  And  it  is  possible 
that  Daniel  may  have  been  translated  still  later.  (See  Home's  Introduc 
tion,  &c.,  vol.  iii.  p.  44.) 

If  the  argument  in  the  text  is  weakened  by  this  admission,  it  may 
receive  the  following  important  accessions  :  —  1.  Passages  of  Daniel  are 
referred  to  by  Jesus  the  son  of  Sirach,  who  must  have  written  as  early 
as  B.  C.  180,  or  before  the  time  of  Epiphanes.1  (See  Ecclus.  xvii.  17, 
compared  with  Dan.  x.  20,  21 ;  xii.  1 ;  and  Ecclus.  x.  8,  compared 
with  Dan.  viii.  23,  &c.)  And,  2.  Daniel's  prophecies  were  shown  to  Al 
exander  the  Great  in  the  year  B.  C.  332,  and  inclined  him  to  treat  the 
Jews  with  special  favor.  (Joseph.  Ant.  Jud.  xi.  8.)  The  authority  of 
Josephus  as  to  the  main  fact  is  not  discredited  by  the  circumstance,  that 
"  the  narrative  of  Josephus  is  not  credible  in  all  of  its  particulars."  (De 
Wette,  Einleitung,  §  255  c,  p.  349.) 

NOTE  VIII.,  p.  132. 

The  fundamental  arguments  in  favor  of  this  are,  1.  The  constant 
representation  of  Daniel  as  the  author  from  ch.  vii.  to  the  end ;  and,  2. 
Our  Lord's  words,  "the  abomination  of  desolation,  spoken  of  by  Daniel 
the  Prophet"  (Matt.  xxiv.  15.)  De  Wette's  arguments  to  the  contrary, 
besides  those  noted  in  the  text,  seem  to  be  the  following,  —  1.  The  mira 
cles  are  grotesque.  2.  The  apocalyptic  tone  is  unlike  that  of  the  proph- 

1  Even  De  Wette  admits  this.  (Einleitung,  I  316,  p.  419,  "  As  we  maintain  at  the 
time  of  its  composition.,  d.  J.  180,  v.  Chr.") 


LECT.  V.  NOTES.  347 

ets  belonging  to  this  period.  3.  Honorable  mention  is  made  of  Daniel 
himself  in  the  book.  4.  The  language  is  corrupt,  containing  Persian 
and  Greek  words.  5.  The  book  is  placed  by  the  Jews  among  the 
Hagiographa,  and  is  therefore  later  than  Malachi.  6.  The  angelology, 
christology,  and  asceticism,  mark  a  late  date.1  Of  these  the  first  and  last 
may  be  simply  denied  ;  the  second  is  reduced  to  a  shadow  by  DC  Wette 
himself  when  he  admits  that  the  style  of  Ezekiel's  and  Zechariah's 
prophesying  is  not  very  unlike  ("  nicht  ganz  fremd")  Daniel's;  the 
third  is  an  objection  equally  to  the  Pentateuch,  the  Gospel  of  St.  John, 
and  some  of  St.  Paul's  Epistles,  and  rests  merely  upon  an  a  priori  con 
ception  of  how  prophets  should  write,  not  borne  out  by  experience ; 
the  fourth  is  not  urged  with  any  confidence,  since  it  is  allowed  to  be 
"  certainly  possible  that  the  Greek  words  may  have  been  known  to  the 
Babylonians  at  the  time,"  (p.  347  ;)  and  if  so,  a  fortiori,  the  Persian 
words ;  and  the  fifth  argument,  if  it  has  any  weight  at  all,  would  make 
the  Book  of  Job,  and  the  Proverbs  of  Solomon,  later  than  Malachi ! 
No  wonder  Professor  Stuart  should  say — "Beyond  the  objections 
founded  on  the  assumption,  that  miracles  and  predictions  are  impossi 
bilities,  there  is  little  to  convince  an  enlightened  and  well-balanced  crit 
ical  reader,  that  the  book  is  supposititious."  (History  and  Defence  of 
the  Canon,  p.  111.) 

NOTE  IX.,  p.  132. 

See  Dan.  i.  3.  Josephus  says  that  Daniel  was  of  the  seed  of  Zedekiah. 
Ant.  Jud.  x.  10.) 

NOTE  X/,  p.  132. 

Ewald  contends,  that  the  Daniel  commended  by  Ezekiel  must  have 
been  an  ancient  hero,  like  Job  and  Noah,  (Propheten  des  Alt.  Bundes,  p. 
560,)  of  whose  wisdom  and  righteousness  he  knew  from  some  sacred 
book,  with  which  both  himself  and  the  Jews  of  his  time  were  well  ac 
quainted.  We  are  not  told  what  has  become  of  this  book,  or  what 
proof  there  is  of  its  existence.  Nor  is  it  explained  how  this  "ancient 
hero  "  comes  not  to  be  mentioned  in  the  historical  Scriptures  at  all,  or 
by  any  writer  earlier  than  Ezekiel.  Doubtless  if  we  had  no  means  of 
knowing  to  the  contrary,  we  should  naturally  have  supposed  from 
Ezek.  xiv.  14  and  20,  that  Daniel  was  an  ancient  historical  personage 

1  Einleitung  g  255,  pp.  346,  317. 


348  NOTES.  LECT.  V. 

in  Ezekiel's  time,  having  lived  between  Noah  and  Job  ;  but  as  this  is 
impossible  from  the  absolute  silence  of  the  historical  books,  Ezekiel's 
mention  of  him  at  all  can  only  be  accounted  for  by  the  fact  that  he  was 
the  great  Jew  of  the  day,  and  that  his  wisdom  and  Virtue  were  known 
to  those  for  whom  Ezekiel  wrote,  — the  Chaldaan  Jews,1  be  it  remem 
bered,  (Ezek.  i.  2,  3,)  —  not  historically,  or  from  any  book,  but  from 
personal  acquaintance  and  common  rumor.  Why  Daniel  precedes  Job, 
is  still  a  question.  Perhaps,  because  Daniel  and  Noah  are  actual  men, 
while  Job  is  not  ?  Or  because  the  two  former  are  viewed  as  Jews,  Job 
as  a  Gentile  ? 

NOTE  XL,  p.  132. 

Einleitung,  §  255  a,  p.  344  ;  "  full  of  improbabilities,  and  even  of  his 
torical  errors,  such  as  no  other  prophetical  book  of  the  Old  Testament 
contains."  Compare  p.  349. 

NOTE  XIL,  p.  132. 

See  above,  Note  LXXXVI.  on  Lecture  IV.  Sargon  seems  to  have 
been  the  first  king  who  introduced  this  practice  on  a  large  scale.  He 
was  followed  by  Sennacherib,  (Fox  Talbot's  Assyrian  Texts,  pp.  3,  4,  7, 
&c. ;)  and  Esarhaddon,  (ibid.  pp.  11  and  17.) 

NOTE  XIIL,  p.  132. 

See  Herod,  iv.  181 ;  v.  15  ;  vi.  20  and  119  ;  Ctes.  Pers.,  §  9  ;  Arrian. 
Exp.  Alex.,  iii.  48  ;  and  compare  the  author's  Herodotus,  vol.  ii.  pp.  563, 
564.  The  practice  continues  to  modern  times.  (See  Chardin's  Voyage 
en  Perse,  vol.  iii.  p.  292  ;  and  Ferricr's  Caravan  Journeys,  p.  395.) 

NOTE  XIY.,  p.  133. 
Lee  Lecture  IV.,  Note  LXXXIII. 


1  Tt  has  been  usual  to  regard  Ezekiel  as  writing  in  Mesopotamia,  the  Chebar  being 
supposed  to  be  the  Khabour.  But  we  have  no  right  to  assume  the  identity  of  the 
words  "H3  and  T1— H.  The  Chebar  is  probably  the  Xahr  Malcha,  or  Royal  Canal, 
the  great  (1"G2\  cutting  of  Nebuchadnezzar.  See  the  article  on  CHEBATI  in  Smith's 
(forthcoming)  Biblical  Dictionary. 


LECT.  V.  NOTES.  349 


NOTE  XV.,  p.  133. 

See  the  fragments  of  these  writers  in  the  Fragmenta  Hist.  Gr.,  vol.  ii. 
pp.  506,  507 ;  and  vol.  iv.  p.  284.  Compare  with  the  expression  in 
Daniel,  "Is  not  this  great  Babylon  which  I  have  built?"  (Dan.  iv. 
30,)  the  statement  of  Berosus.  Nebuchadnezzar  .  .  .  repaired  the  city 
which  had  existed  from  the  first,  and  added  another  to  it ;  and  in  order 
that  besiegers  might  not  again  be  able,  by  turning  aside  the  course  of 
the  river,  to  get  possession  of  the  city,  he  built  three  courses  of  walls 
around  the  inner  city,  and  as  many  around  the  outer.  Both  statements 
are  confirmed  by  the  fact  that  nine  tenths  of  the  inscribed  bricks  from 
the  site  of  Babylon  are  stamped  with  Nebuchadnezzar's  name. 

NOTE  XVI.,  p.  133. 

Ap.  Euseb.  Preep.  Ev.  ix.  41,  pp.  441, 442.  "  Afterwards,  as  is  said  by 
the  Chaldaeans,  he  went  up  into  his  palace,  where  he  was  seized  by  some 
divine  influence,  and  uttered  these  words :  « O  Babylonians,  I  Nebu 
chadnezzar  announce  to  you  this  future  calamity.  .  .  .  There  shall  come 
a  Persian  mule,  using  our  divinities  as  allies  :  he  shall  bring  us  into 
bondage  :  leagued  with  him  shall  be  the  Mede,  the  boast  of  Assyria.' 
Having  uttered  these  predictions,  he  immediately  disappeared." 

NOTE  XVH.,  p.  133. 

Beros.  ap.  Joseph.  Contr.  Apionem,  i.  20  ;  Polyhist.  ap.  Euseb.  Chron- 
ica,  i.  5,  §  3,  p.  21 ;  Ptol.  Mag.  Syntax.,  v.  14. 

NOTE  XVIII.,  p.  134. 

These  tablets  are  commonly  orders  on  the  imperial  treasury,  dated  in 
the  current  year  of  the  reigning  monarch,  like  modern  Acts  of  Parlia 
ment.  They  give  a  minimum  for  the  length  of  each  monarch's  reign, 
but  of  course  by  the  nature  of  the  case  they  cannot  furnish  a  maximum. 
Still,  where  they  are  abundant,  as  in  Nebuchadnezzar's  case,  they  raise 
a  strong  probability  that  the  highest  number  found  was  not  much  ex 
ceeded. 

30 


350  NOTES.  LECT.  V. 


NOTE  XIX.,  p.  134. 

The  eighth  year  of  Nebuchadnezzar  being  the  first  of  Jehoiachin'g 
captivity,  (2  Kings  xxiv.  12,)  we  must  place  the  beginning  of  Nebuchad 
nezzar's  reign  seven  years  earlier  ;  and  the  37th  of  the  captivity  being 
the  first  of  Evil-Merodach,  (Ibid.  xxv.  27,)  the  36th  would  be  Nebu 
chadnezzar's  last  complete  year.  Now  36  -}-  7  =  43. 

NOTE  XX.,  p.  134. 

So  De  Wette,  (Einleitung,  §  255  a ;  p.  345  c.,)  who  quotes  von  Len- 
gerke,  Hitzig,  and  others,  as  agreeing  with  him.  Ewald  also  compares 
Daniel  to  Judith,  on  account  of  its  confusing  together  various  times 
and  countries.  (Propheten  des  Alt.  Bundes,  p.  562.) 

NOTE  XXI.,  p.  134. 

De  Wette  gives  the  first  place  among  his  ' '  historical  inaccuracies," 
to  the  "  erroneous  representations  concerning  the  wise  men  of  Baby 
lon,"  and  the  "  inexplicable  admission  of  Daniel  among  the  same;  "  the 
second  to  the  "mention  of  the  Persian  arrangement  of  Satrapies  under 
Nebuchadnezzar  and  Darius  the  Mede."  (Einleitung,  1.  s.  c.) 

NOTE  XXH.,  p.  134. 

The  word  which  we  translate  "magicians"  in  Dan.  i.  20,  ii.  2,  10, 
&c.,  is  chartummim,  or  khartummim,  (G^p^n,)  which  is  derived  from 
cheret,  or  kherct,  (S^n,)  "  a  graving-tool."'  (See  Buxtorf's  Lexicon  He- 
braicum  et  Chaldaicum,  ad  voc.)  Babylonian  documents  are  sometimes 
written  on  clay,  where  the  character  has  been  impressed,  before  the  clay 
was  baked,  by  a  tool  with  a  triangular  point ;  but  they  are  also  fre 
quently  on  stone  —  large  pebbles  from  the  Euphrates' s  bed  —  in  which 
case  they  have  been  engraved  with  a  fine  chisel. ' 

NOTE  XXm.,  p.  135. 

The  Chaldseans  in  Kings,  Chronicles,  Isaiah,  Jeremiah,  and  even 
Ezekiel,  are  simply  the  inhabitants  of  Chalda~:a,  which  is  the  name  ap 
plied  to  the  whole  country  whereof  Babylon  is  the  capital.  But  in 


LECT.  V.  NOTES.  351 

Daniel  the  Chaldaeans  are  a  special  set  of  persons  at  Babylon,  having  a 
«'  learning  "  and  a  "  tongue  "  of  their  own,  (Dan.  i.  4,)<«nd  classed  with 
the  magicians,  astrologers,  &c.  Strabo  notes  both  senses  of  the  term, 
(xvi.  i.  §  6  ;)  and  Berosus  seems  to  use  the  narrower  and  less  common 
one,  when  he  speaks  of  Nebuchadnezzar  as  finding  on  his  arrival  at 
Babylon  after  his  father's  death,  that  affairs  were  being  conducted  by 
the  Chaldaeans,  and  that  their  chief  was  keeping  the  throne  vacant  for 
him,  ("  assuming  the  administration  of  affairs,  which  had  been  under  the 
management  of  the  Chaldaeans,  and  the  kingdom  which  had  been  kept 
for  him  by  the  most  eminent  one  among  them,  he  succeeded,"  &c.,  Fr. 
14,)  while  elsewhere  (as  in  Frs.  1,  §  1  ;  5,  6,  11,  &c.)  he  employs  the 
generic  and  more  usual  sense.  Compare  Herod,  i.  181,  and  vii.  63. 
The  inscriptions  show  that  the  Chaldaeans  (Kaldi)  belonged  to  the 
primitive  Scythic  inhabitants,  and  that  the  old  astronomical  and  other 
learning  of  the  Babylonians  continued  to  be  in  this  language  during  the 
later  Semitic  times.  (See  Sir  H.  Rawlinson's  note  in  the  author's 
Herodotus,  vol.  i.  p.  319,  note  8.) 

NOTE  XXIV.,  p.  135. 

Compare  an  article  on  the  Chaldaeans  in  Smith's  (forthcoming)  Bibli 
cal  Dictionary. 

NOTE  XXV.,  p.  135. 
See  above,  Lecture  IV.,  Note  LXXXI. 

NOTE  XXVI.,  p.  136. 

I  do  not  intend  to  assert  that  this  was  the  case.  "VVe  have  no  satis 
factory  proof  that  the  Babylonians  ever  approached  more  nearly  to  the 
Satrapial  system  than  by  the  appointment  in  exceptional  cases  of  a 
native  "governor"  in  lieu  of  an  hereditary  king,  as  in  the  case  of 
Gedaliah.  The  maintenance  of  Jehoiakim,  Jehoiachin,  and  Zedekiah 
on  the  throne  of  Judsea  seems  to  indicate  the  general  character  of  their 
government.  It  may  even  be  suspected  that  Berosus' s  "  Satrap  of 
Egypt  and  Syria"  was  really  Pharaoh-Necho,  whose  position  Baby 
lonian  vanity  represented  in  that  light.  The  LXX.  translate  Daniel's 
"  princes  "  (fttQtfTOlfrllt)  by  aarpdwai,  but  this  cannot  be  regarded  as 
an  argument  of  much  weight.  Babylonian  historical  inscriptions  are  so 


352  NOTES.  LECT.  V. 

scanty  that  we  can  derive  little  assistance  from  them  towards  determin 
ing  the  question. 

NOTE  XXVII.,  p.  136. 

The  extent  of  the  kingdom,  (Dan.  iv.  22,)  the  absolute  power  of  the 
king,  (ib.  ii.  5,  13,  48  ;  iii.  29,  &c.,)  the  influence  of  the  Chaldaeans, 
(ib.  ii.  2  ;  iii.  8,  &c.,)  the  idolatrous  character  of  the  religion,  the  use  of 
images  of  gold,  (ib.  iii.  1  ;  compare  Herod,  i.  183,)  are  borne  out  by 
profane  writers,  and  (so  far  as  their  testimony  can  be  brought  to  bear) 
by  the  monuments.  The  building  (rebuilding)  of  Babylon  (Dan.  iv. 
30)  by  -Nebuchadnezzar,  is  confirmed  in  every  way.  (See  above, 
Note  XV.)  Again,  there  is  a  curious  notice  in  Daniel  of  a  certain 
peculiarity  which  may  be  remarked  in  Nebuchadnezzar's  religion,  viz., 
his  special  devotion  to  a  particular  god.  Nebuchadnezzar  throughout 
his.  inscriptions  presents  himself  to  us  as  a  devotee  of  Merodach. 
"  Merodach,  his  lord,"  is  the  chief —  almost  the  sole  object  of  his  wor 
ship  and  praise  —  invocations,  prayers,  and  thanksgivings  are  addressed 
to  him,  and  him  only.  (See  Sir  H.  Rawlinson's  remarks  in  the  author's 
Herodotus,  vol.  i.  pp.  628,  629,  and  compare  the  Inscription  of  Nebu 
chadnezzar  in  the  same  work,  vol.  ii.  pp.  585-587.)  This  peculiarity  is 
casually  and  incidentally  noticed  by  Daniel4  when  he  says  that  Nebu 
chadnezzar  carried  the  sacred  vessels  of  the  temple  "  into  the  land  of 
Shinar,  to  the  house  of  his  god;  and  brought  the  vessels  into  the 
treasure-house  of  his  god"  (i.  2.) 

NOTE  XXVni.,  p.  136. 

See  his  Beitrttge  zur  Einleitung  in  das  Alt.  Test.,  p.  105.  Hengsten- 
berg  has  on  his  side  the  authority  of  Eusebius,  who  so  understood  the 
passage,  (Chronica,  i.  10,  p.  21 ;)  but  Eusebius's  arguments  appear  to 
me  very  weak. 

NOTE  XXIX.,  p.  137. 

See  Sir  H.  Rawlinson's  translation  of  the  Standard  Inscription  in 
the  author's  Herodotus,  vol.  ii.  pp.  585-587.  The  passage  to  which 
reference  is  made  in  the  text  runs  as  follows  —  ««  Four  years  (?)... 
the  seat  of  my  kingdom  in  the  city  .  .  .  which  .  .  .  did  not  rejoice  my 
heart.  In  all  my  dominions  I  did  not  build  a  high  place  of  power ;  the 
precious  treasures  of  my  kingdom  I  did  not  lay  up.  In  Babylon, 


LECT.  V.  NOTES.  Oo3 

buildings  for  myself  and  for  the  honor  of  my  kingdom  I  did  not  lay 
out.  In  the  worship  of  Merodach  my  lord,  the  joy  of  my  heart,  (?)  in 
Babylon  the  city  of  his  sovereignty  and  the  scat  of  my  empire,  I  did 
not  sing  his  praises,  (r)  and  I  did  not  furnish  his  altars  (with  victims), 
nor  did  I  clear  out  the  canals."  Other  negative  clauses  follow.  From 
this  literal  rendering  of  the  passage,  only  one  or  two  words  of  which 
are  at  all  doubtful,  the  reader  may  judge  for  himself  to  what  event  in 
his  life  it  is  likely  that  the  monarch  alludes.  lie  should  perhaps  bear 
in  mind  that  the  whole  range  of  cuneiform  literature  presents  no  simi 
lar  instance  of  a  king  putting  on  record  his  own  inaction. 

NOTE  XXX.,  p.  137. 

Berosus  ap.  Joseph.  Contr.  Ap.t  i.  20:  "Now  Nebuchadnezzar,  just 
as  he  began  to  build  the  aforesaid  wall,  fell  sick,  and  died,  after  having 
reigned  43  years.  His  son,  Evil-Merodach,  became  master  of  the 
kingdom."  Compare  Abyden.  ap.  Euseb.  Chron.,  i.  10,  p.  28  ;  aad 
Poly  hist.  ap.  eund.  i.  5,  §  3  ;  p.  21. 

NOTE  XXXI.,  p.  137. 

Berosus  continues  after  the  passage  above  quoted —  "This  man,  hav 
ing  used  his  authority  in  a  lawless  and  dissolute  manner,  was  slain  by 
conspirators." 

NOTE  XXXII.,  p.  138. 

The  Babylonian  name  is  read  as  Nergal-shar-uzur ;  the  Hebrew  form 
(")2&p'Er;b3'1}2)  is  exactly  expressed  by  our  authorized  version,  which 
gives  Nergal-shar-ezer.  The  Greek  renderings  are  far  inferior  to  the 
Hebrew.  Berosus,  as  reported  by  Josephus,  (1.  s.  c.,)  called  the  king 
Neriglissoor  ;  Polyhistor  called  him  Neglissar,  (Euseb.  Chron.,  i.  5  ; 
p.  21  ;)  Abydenus,  Niglissar,  (Armen.  Euseb.,)  or  Neriglissar,  (Euseb. 
Pr&p.  Ev.,  ix.  41 ;)  Ptolemy,  (May.  Synt.,  1.  s.  c.,)  Nerigassolassar. 


NOTE  XXXHL,  p.  138. 

The  Babylonian  vocalization  somewhat  modifies  the  word,  which  is 
read  as  in  the  Inscriptions  as  Rubu-emga.  (See  Sir  H.  Rawlinson's 
note  in  the  author's  Herodotus,  vol.  i.  p.  518,  note3.)  With  this  the 

30* 


354  NOTES.  LECT.  V. 


Hebrew  Riib-mag  (3ft  "Si)  is  identical  in  all  its  consonants  ;  and  there 
can  be  no  reasonable  doubt  that  it  is  the  same  term.  Gesenius  has 
translated  the  title  as  "  Chief  of  the  Magi,"  (Lexicon,  p.  388,  E.  T.  ;) 
but  the  Babylonian  word  which  represents  the  Persian  Magi  in  the 
Behistun  Inscription  bears  no  resemblance  at  all  to  the  emga  of  this 
title.  Sir  II.  Rawlinson  believes  the  signification  to  be  "  Chief  Priest," 
but  holds  that  there  is  no  reference  in  it  to  Magism. 

NOTE  XXXIV.,  p.  138. 

Abydenus  has  the  form  Nabannidochus,  (ap.  Euseb.  Chron.  i.  10, 
p.  28,)  with  which  may  be  compared  the  Naboandelus  (probably  to  be 
read  Naboandechus,)  of  Josephus,  (Ant.  Jud.  x.  11.)  Berosus  wrote 
Nabonnedus  (Joseph.  Contr.  Ap.  i.  20  ;)  Herodotus,  Labynetus,  (i.  77, 
188.)  The  actual  name  seems  to  have  been  Nabu-nahit  in  Semitic, 
Nabu-induk  in  the  Cushite  Babylonian. 

NOTE  XXXV.  p.  139. 

So  Josephus,  (Ant.  Jud.  1.  s.  c.  ;)  Perizonius,  (Orig.  Babylon,  p.  359  •) 
Heeren,  Manual  of  Ancient  History,  p.  28,  E.  T.  ;  Des  Vignoles, 
(Euvres,  vol.  ii.  p.  510,  et  seqq.  ;  Clinton,  F.  H.  vol.  ii.  pp.  369-371  ; 
the  author  of  L'Art  de  Verifier  les  Dates,  vol.  ii.  p.  69  ;  Winer,  Real- 
u-Qrterbuch  ad  voc.  Belshazzar  ;  Kitto,  Biblical  Cyclopedia  ad  voc. 
eand.  ;  &c. 

NOTE  XXXVL,  p.  139. 

It  has  been  almost  universally  concluded,  by  those  who  have  regarded 
the  book  of  Daniel  as  authentic,  that  the  Belshazzar  of  that  book  must 
be  identical  with  one  or  other  of  the  native  monarchs  known  from 
Berosus  and  Abydenus  to  have  occupied  the  throne  between  Nebuchad 
nezzar  and  Cyrus.  Each  monarch  has  been  preferred  in  his  turn. 
Conringius,  Bouhier,  Larcher,  Marshajn,  Hupfeld,  Havernick,  and 
others,  have  identified  Belshazzar  with  Evil-Merodach  ;  Eusebius, 
Syncellus,  and  Hales,  with  Neriglissar  ;  Jackson  and  Gatterer,  with 
Laborosoarchod  ;  but  the  bulk  of  commentators  and  historians  with 
Nabonadius.  (See  the  last  note.)  In  every  case  there  was  the  same 
difficulty  in  explaining  the  diversity  of  name,  as  well  as  in  reconciling 


LECT.  V.  NOTES.  355 

the  historical  facts  recorded  of  the  monarch  preferred  with  what  Scrip 
ture  tells  us  of  Belshazzar.  On  the  whole,  perhaps  the  hypothesis  of 
Conringius  was  the  least  objectionable. 


XXXVIL,  p.  139. 
So  De  Wette,  Einleitung,  §  255  a,  p.  345. 

NOTE  XXXVIIL,  p.  139. 

This  view  was  maintained  by  Sir  Isaac  Newton.  (See  his  Chronol 
ogy,  pp.  323-330.) 

NOTE  XXXIX.,  p.  139. 

Sir  H.  Rawlinson  made  this  important  discovery  in  the  year  1854, 
from  documents  obtained  at  Mugheir,  the  ancient  Ur.  (See  Mr.  Lof- 
tus's  Chaldcea  and  Susiana,  ch.  xii.  pp.  132,  133  ;  and  compare  the 
author's  Herodotus,  vol.  i.  p.  525.) 

NOTE  XL.,  p.  140. 

Jehu,  though  ordinarily  called  "  the  son  of  Nimshi,"  was  really  his 
grandson,  (2  Kings  ix.  2.)  Merodach-Baladan,  "  the  son  of  Baladan," 
according  to  Isaiah,  (xxxix.  1,)  is  in  the  Inscriptions  the  son  of  Vagina. 
Baladan  was  probably  one  of  his  more  remote  ancestors.  In  Matt.  i.  1, 
our  Blessed  Lord  is  called  "  the  Son  of  David,  (who  was)  the  son  of 
Abraham." 

NOTE  XLL,  p.  140. 

Such  marriages  formed  a  part  of  the  state  policy  of  the  time,  and 
were  sought  with  the  utmost  avidity.  When  Zedekiah's  daughters 
were  committed  to  Gedaliah,  (Jerem.  xli.  10,)  it  was  undoubtedly  that 
he  might  marry  them,  in  order  (as  Mr.  F.  Newman  justly  observes  *) 
"  to  establish  for  his  descendants  an  hereditary  claim  on  Jewish  allegi 
ance."  So  Amasis  married  a  daughter  of  Psammetik  III.  ;  a  and 
Atossa  was  taken  to  wife  both  by  the  Pseudo-Smerdis  and  by  Darius, 
the  son  of  Hystaspes,  (Herod,  iii.  68  and  88.)  On  the  same  grounds 

1  Hebrew  Monarchy,  p.  361. 

*  Wilkinson  in  the  author's  Herodotus,  vol.  ii.  p.  387. 


356  NOTES.  LECT.  V. 

Herod  the  Great  married  Mariamnc.  (See  Joseph.  De  Bell.  Jud.  i.  12, 
§  3.)  An  additional  reason  for  suspecting  that  such  a  marriage  as  that 
suggested  in  the  text  was  actually  contracted  by  Nabonadius,  is  to  be 
found  in  the  fact,  which  may  be  regarded  as  certain,  that  he  adopted 
the  name  of  Nebuchadnezzar  among  his  own  family  names.  That  he 
had  a  son  so  called,  is  proved  by  the  rise  of  two  pretenders  in  the  reign 
of  Darius,  who  each  proclaimed  himself  to  be  "  Nebuchadnezzar,  the 
son  of  Nabonadius."  (Behistun  Inscr.  Col.  i.  Par.  16  ;  and  Col.  iii. 
Par.  13.) 

NOTE  XLII.,  p.  140. 

Syncellus,  Chronograph,  p.  438,  B  ;  Apoc.  Dan.  xiii.  ad  fin. ;  Jack 
son,  Chronolog.  Antiq.  vol.  i.  p.  416 ;  Marsham,  Can.  Chron.  p.  604,  et 
seqq.  ;  Winer,  Realwdrterbuch  ad  voc.  Darius;  &c. 

NOTE  XLHL,  p.  140. 

This  was  the  view  of  Josephus,  (Ant.  Jud.  x.  11,  §  4  ;)  and  from  him 
it  has  been  adopted  very  generally.  See  Prideaux's  Connection,  &c., 
vol.  i.  p.  95  ;  Hales's  Analysis  of  Chronology,  vol.  ii.  p.  508  ;  Offerhaus, 
Spicileg.  Hist.  Chron.,  p.  265  ;  Bertholdt,  Exc.  zum  Daniel,  p.  483  ;  Heng- 
stenberg,  Authentic  des  Daniel,  §  48  ;  Von  Lengerke,  Das  Buch  Daniel, 
§  92 ;  Hooper's  Palmoni,  pp.  278-283  ;  and  Kitto's  Biblical  Cyclopedia, 
ad  voc.  Darius.  But  Xenophon  is  the  sole  authority  for  the  existence 
of  this  personage  ;  and  Herodotus  may  be  quoted  against  his  exist 
ence,  since  he  positively  declares  that  Astyages  "  had  no  male  off 
spring."  (Herod,  i.  109.) 

NOTE  XLIV.,  p.  140. 

By  Larcher,  (Hdrodote,  vol.  vii.  p.  175,)  Conringius,  Adversar.  Chron. 
c.  13,)  and  Bouhier,  (Dissertations  sur  Hcrodote,  ch.  iii.  p.  29.) 

NOTE  XLV.,  p.  140. 

Syncellus  regarded  Darius  the  Mede  as  at  once  identical  with  Astya 
ges  and  Nabonadius.  (Chronograph,  pp.  437,  438.) 


LECT.  V.  NOTES.  357 


NOTE  XL VI.,  p.  140. 

That  Cyrus  placed  Medes  in  situations  of  high  trust,  is  evident  from 
Herodotus,  (i.  156  and  162.)  He  may  therefore  very  possibly  have 
established  Astyages,  his  grandfather  (?),  as  vice-king  of  Babylon,  where 
the  latter  may  have  been  known  to  the  Jews  as  Darius  the  Mede.  The 
diversity  of  name  is  no  real  objection  here  ;  for  Astyages  ( Asdahages  = 
Aj-dahaK)  is  not  a  name,  but  (like  Pharaoh)  a  title.  And  if  it  be  said 
that  Darius  the  Mede  was  the  son  of  Ahasuerus  or  Xerxes,  (Dan.  ix.  1,) 
while  Astyages  was  the  son  of  Cyaxares,  it  may  be  answered  that,  ac 
cording  to  one  explanation,  Cyaxares  is  equivalent  to  Kei-Axares,  or 
King  Xerxes.  There  is  still  an  objection  in  the  age  of  Darius  Medus, 
who  was  only  62  in  B.  C.  538,  (Dan.  v.  31,)  whereas  Astyages  (it  would 
seem)  must  have  been  75  at  that  time.  (See  the  author's  Herodotus, 
vol.  i.  pp.  417,  418.)  But  as  the  numbers  depend  here  on  the  single 
authority  of  Herodotus,  whose  knowledge  of  Median  history  was  not 
very  great,  perhaps  they  are  not  greatly  entitled  to  consideration. 

If,  however,  it  be  thought  that,  for  this  or  any  other  reason,  Darius 
Medus  cannot  be  Astyages,  we  may  regard  him  as  a  Median  noble,  in 
trusted  by  Cyrus  with  the  government  of  Babylon.  Scripture  makes 
it  plain  that  his  true  position  was  that  of  a  subordinate  king,  holding 
his  crown  of  a  superior.  Darius  the  Mede,  we  are  told,  (Dan.  v.  30,) 
"  took  the  kingdom"  —  JWrfiSbto  ^212 —  that  is,  "accepit  regnum," 
(Buxtorf.  ad  voc.  iQj>)  "  received  the  kingdom  at  the  hand  of  an 
other."  And  again  we  read  in  another  place,  (Dan.  ix.  1,)  that  he 
"  was  made  king  over  the  realm  of  the  Chaldaeans;"  where  the  word 
used  is  tjbfan,  the  Hophil  of  "Sjbfa,  the  Hiphal  of  which  is  used  when 
David  appoints  Solomon  king,  and  which  thus  means  distinctly,  "was 
appointed  king  by  another." 

NOTE  XL VII.,  p.  141. 
Herod,  i.  191 ;  Xen.  Instit.  Cyr,  vii.  5,  §  15. 

NOTE  XLVHL,  p.  141. 
See  the  author's  Herodotus,  vol.  i.  pp.  401-403. 


358  NOTES.  LECT.  V. 


NOTE  XLIX.,  p.  141. 

Even  the  tyrant  Cambyses,  when  he  wished  to  marry  his  sister,  be 
cause  he  was  intending  to  do  an  unusual  thing,  called  together  the 
royal  judges,  and  asked  them  if  there  was  any  law  which  allowed  one 
who  wished,  to  marry  his  sister.  (Herod,  iii.  31.)  And  Xerxes,  when 
he  had  been  entrapped,  like  Herod  Antipas,  into  making  a  rash  prom 
ise,  feels  compelled  to  keep  it,  being  restrained  by  the  law,  namely,  that 
it  is  not  allowable  that  one  who  makes  a  request  at  the  time  of  a  royal 
feast  should  be  denied.  (Ibid.  ix.  111.) 

NOTE  L.,  p.  141. 

See  De  Wette,  Einleitung,  §  255  a,  p.  345.  Compare  Mr.  Parker's 
Translation,  (vol.  ii.  p.  490,)  where  it  is  suggested  that  the  author  has 
copied  and  exaggerated  what  Herodotus  ascribes  to  Darius  Hystaspis. 

NOTE  LI.,  p.  141. 

See  Clinton's  Fasti  Hellenici,  vol.  ii.  p.  372 :  "The  one  hundred  and 
twenty  princes  appointed  by  Darius  (Dan.  vi.  1)  correspond  to  the  one 
hundred  and  twenty-seven  provinces  of  Ahasuerus,  (Esth.  i.  1,)  and  to 
the  enlarged  extent  of  the  empire." 

NOTE  LIL,  p.  142. 

Nebuchadnezzar's  first  conquest  of  Judaea  in  the  reign  of  Jehoiakim 

—  which  was  the  occasion  on  which  Daniel  became  a  captive  (Dan.  i.  1) 

—  fell,  as  appears  from  the  fragment  of  Berosus  quoted  in  Note  LXXXI. 
to  Lecture  IV.,  in  his  father's  last  year,  which,  according  to  Ptolemy's 
Canon,  was  B.  C.  605.     Nebuchadnezzar  then  reigned  himself  43  years, 
Evil-Merodach,  his  son,  reigned  two  years,  Neriglissar  three  years  and 
some  months,  Laborosoarchod  three  quarters  of  a  year,  Nabonadius  17 
years,  and  Darius  the  Mede  one  year.      Consequently  Daniel's  prayer 
«'  in  the  first  year  of  Darius  the  Mede"  (Dan.  ix.  1-3)  fell  into  the  year 
B.  C.  538,  or  68  years  after  the  first  conquest  of  Judaea  by  Nebuchad 
nezzar  in  B.  C.  605. 


LECT.  V.  NOTES.  359 


NOTE  Lin.,  p.  142. 

See  Clinton's  Fasti  llettenici,  vol.  ii.  pp.  366-368 ;  and  Mr.  Hooper's 
Palmoni,  p.  390. 

NOTE  LIV.,  p.  143. 

In  Daniel's  prophecy  of  the  weeks,  we  have  (I  think)  the  term  of 
seventy  years  used  first  (Dan.  ix.  24)  as  a  round  number,  and  after 
wards  explained  —  accuracy  being  of  especial  importance  in  this  proph 
ecy —  as  68£  weeks,  (ibid.  25-27.)  In  Ezekiel,  the  forty  years'  desola 
tion  of  Egypt  (Ez.  xxix.  11-13)  can  scarcely  be  understood  to  extend 
really  to  the  full  term.  Prophecy  is,  as  Bacon  says,  "  a  kind  of  histo 
riography  ; "  but  it  does  not  ordinarily  affect  the  minuteness  and  strict 
accuracy  of  human  history. 

NOTE  LV.,  p.  143. 

Einleitung,  §  196,  197,  pp.  260-265.  It  is  obvious  that  the  insertion 
of  documents,  such  as  the  proclamation  of  Cyrus,  (Ez.  i.  24,)  the  list  of 
those  who  came  up  with  Zerubbabel,  (ib.  ii.  3-67  ;  Neh.  viii.  7-69 ;) 
the  letters  of  the  Samaritans,  the  Jews,  the  Persian  kings,  (ib.  iv.  11-22, 
&c.,)  and  the  like,  does  not  in  the  slightest  degree  affect  the  unity  and 
integrity  of  the  works.  But  De  Wette  does  not  appear  to  see  this, 
(§  196  a,  p.  260.) 

NOTE  LVL,  p.  143. 

The  number  of  generations  from  Joshua  to  Jaddua,  which  is  six, 
(Neh.  xii.  10-12,)  should  cover  a  space  of  about  200  years.  This 
would  bring  Jaddua  to  the  latter  half  of  the  fourth  century  B.  C.  Ex 
actly  at  this  time  there  lived  the  well-known  high  priest  Jaddua, 
who  received  Alexander  at  Jerusalem,  and  showed  him  the  prophecies 
of  Daniel.  (Joseph.  Ant.  Jud.  xi.  8.)  At  this  time  too  there  was  a 
Darius  (Darius  Codomannus)  upon  the  Persian  throne,  as  noted  in 
verse  22.  The  Jaddua  of  Nehemiah  must  therefore  be  regarded  as  the 
contemporary  of  Alexander. 

Havernick  allows  this,  but  still  thinks  that  Nehemiah  may  have  writ 
ten  the  whole  book,  since  he  may  have  lived  to  the  time  of  Jaddua! 
But  as  Nehemiah  was  old  enough  to  be  sent  on  an  important  mission  in 


360  NOTES.  LECT.  V. 

B.  C.  445,  (Neh.  ii.  1-8,)  he  would  have  been  considerably  above  a 
hundred  before  Jaddua  can  have  been  priest,  and  130  or  140  before  the 
accession  of  Codomannus. 

NOTE  LVII.,  p.  144. 

Eight  Dukes  or  Kings  are  mentioned  in  Genesis  xxxvi.  31-39,  as 
having  reigned  over  Edom,  "  before  there  reigned  any  king  in  Israel'' 
This  last  clause  must  have  been  written  after  the  time  of  Saul,  the  first 
Israelite  king ;  and  it  has  commonly  been  regarded  as  an  interpolation. 
(Graves's  Lectures  on  the  Pentateuch,  vol.  i.  p.  346  ;  Home,  Introduc 
tion,  vol.  i.  p.  64 ;  &c.)  But  the  real  interpolation  seems  to  be  from 
verse  31  to  verse  39  inclusive.  These  kings,  whose  reigns  are  likely  to 
have  covered  a  space  of  200  years,  must  come  down  later  than  Mose.s, 
and  probably  reach  nearly  to  the  time  of  Saul.  The  whole  passage 
seems  to  have  been  transferred  from  1  Chr.  i.  43-50. 

In  1  Chronicles  iii.  17-24,  the  genealogy  of  the  descendants  of 
Jechoniah  is  carried  on  for  nine  generations,  (Jechoniah,  Pedaiah, 
Zerubbabel,  Hananiah,  Shekaniah,  Shemaiah,  Neariah,  Elioenai,  and 
Hodaiah,)  who  must  have  occupied  a  period  not  much  short  of  three 
centuries.  As  Jechoniah  came  to  the  throne  in  B.  C.  597,  this  portion 
of  Chronicles  can  scarcely  have  been  written  before  B.  C.  300.  See  De 
Wette,  Einleitung,  §  189,  p.  242,  whose  argument  here  appears  to  be 
sound.  He  remarks,  that  the  occurrence  of  a  Shemaiah,  the  son  of 
Shekaniah,  among  the  contemporaries  of  Nehemiah,  (Neh.  iii.  29,)  con 
firms  the  calculation,  and  indicates  that  the  genealogy  is  consecutive. 

NOTE  LVIIL,  p.  144. 

De  Wette  in  one  place  admits  that  Ezra  may  have  written  a  chapter 
(ch.  x.)  in  which  the  third  person  is  used,  but  pronounces  against  his 
having  written  the  opening  passage  of  ch.  vii.,  (verses  1-10,)  chiefly  on 
this  ground.  (Einleitung,  §  196  a,  p.  261.)  Bertholdt  and  Zunz  go 
farther,  and  deny  that  Ezra  can  have  written  ch.  x.  Professor  Stuart 
concludes,  chiefly  on  account  of  the  alternation  of  persons,  that  "some 
one  of  E/ra's  friends,  probably  of  the  prophetic  order,  compiled  the 
book  from  various  documents,"  among  which  were  some  written  by 
Ezra  himself.  (Defence  of  the  Old  Testament  Canon,  §  6,  p.  148.) 


LECT.  V.  NOTES.  361 


NOTE  LIX.,  p.  144. 

The  third  person  is  used  through  the  first  six  chapters  of  Daniel,  and 
at  the  opening  of  the  seventh.  The  first  then  takes  its  place  to  the  end 
of  ch.  ix.  The  third  recurs  in  the  first  verse  of  ch.  x.  ;  after  which  the 
first  is  used  uninterruptedly. 

NOTE  LX.,  p.  144. 

Thucydides  begins  his  history  in  the  third  person,  (i.  1. ;)  but  changes 
to  the  first  after  a  few  chapters,  (i.  20-22.)  Further  on,  in  book  iv., 
he  resumes  the  third,  chs.  104-106.)  In  book  v.  ch.  26,  he  begins  in 
the  third,  but  runs  on  into  the  first,  which  he  again  uses  in  book  viii. 
ch.  97. 

NOTE  LXL,  p.  144. 

See  Sir  H.  Rawlinson's  Memoir  on  the  Persian  Cuneiform  Inscriptions, 
vol.  i.  pp.  279,  286,  287,  292,  293,  324,  327,  &c. 


NOTE  LXIL,  p.  145. 

The  «» first  year  of  Cyrus,"  (Ez.  i.  1,)  by  which  we  must  understand 
his  first  year  in  Babylon,  was  B.  C.  538.  The  seventh  year  of  Arta- 
xerxes,  when  Ezra  took  the  direction  of  affairs  at  Jerusalem,  (ib.  vii.  8,) 
was  B.  C.  459  or  458.  (See  Clinton's  Fasti  Hellenici,  vol.  ii.  p.  378.) 

NOTE  LXIIL,  p.  145. 
See  above,  Lecture  I.  page  39,  and  compare  p.  244,  Note  XL  VIII. 

NOTE  LXIV.,  p.  145. 

De  Wette,  Einleitung,  §  196  a,  p.  260  ;  vol.  ii.  p.  324,  Parker's 
Translation ;  Stuart,  Defence  of  the  Canon,  §  6,  p.  148  ;  Horne,  Intro 
duction,  vol.  v.  pp.  64,  65. 

NOTE  LXV.,  p.  145. 

See  Lecture  IV.,  p.  104. 

31 


NOTES.  LECT.  V. 

NOTE  LXVL,  p.  145. 
See  Lecture  I.,  pp.  34,  35  ;  and  p.  241,  Note  XXXIV. 

NOTE  LXVIL,  p.  145. 

41  Die  Erzahlung,"  says  De  Wette,  "  besteht  aus  einer  Reihe  geschicht- 
licher  Schweirigkeiten  undUnwahrschein-lichkeiten,  und  enthalt  mehrere 
Verstosse  gegen  die  Persischen  Sitten."  (Einleitung,  §  198  a,  p.  266.) 

NOTE  LXVIIL,  p.  145. 

CEder,  Freien  Untersiichungen  uber  d.  Kanon  des  Alt.  Test.,  p.  12,  et 
seqq.  ;  Michaelis,  Orient.  Bibliothek,  vol.  ii.  p.  35,  et  seqq.  ;  Corrodi, 
Beleucht.  d.  Geschicht.  d.  Jud.  Kanons,  vol.  i.  p.  66,  et  seqq.  ;  and 
Bertholdt,  Ilistorisch-Kritische  Einleitung  in  summt.  kanon.  und  apokr. 
Schriften  d.  Alt.  und  Neuen  Testaments,  p.  2425. 

NOTE  LXIX.,  p.  145. 

See  Carpzov's  Introductio,  xx.  §  6,  pp.  365,  366,  where  he  shows  that 
the  Jews  place  the  Book  of  Esther  on  a  par  with  the  Pentateuch,  and 
above  all  the  rest  of  Scripture. 

NOTE  LXX.,  p.  146. 

Even  De  Wette  allows  it  to  be  "incontestable  (iinstreitig)  that  the 
feast  of  Purim  originated  in  Persia,  and  was  occasioned  by  an  event 
similar  to  that  related  in  Esther."  (Einleitung,  §  198  b,  p.  267  ;  vol.  ii. 
p.  339,  Parker's  Translation.)  Stuart  says  very  forcibly — "The  fact 
that  the  feast  of  Purim  has  come  down  to  us  from  time  almost  im 
memorial,  proves  as  certainly  that  the  main  events  related  in  the  Book 
of  Esther  happened,  as  the  declaration  of  independence  and  the  cel 
ebration  of  the  fourth  of  July  prove  that  we  (Americans)  separated 
from  Great  Britain,  and  became  an  independent  nation."  (History  and 
Defence  of  the  O.  T.  Canon,  §  21,  p.  308.) 

NOTE  LXXL,  p.  146. 

It  is  remarkable  that  the  name  of  God  is  not  once  mentioned  in 
Esther.  The  only  religious  ideas  introduced  with  any  distinctness  are 


LECT.  V.  NOTES.  363 

the  efficacy  of  a  national  humiliation,  (Esth.  iv.  1-3,)  the  certainty  that 
punishment  will  overtake  the  wicked,  (ib.  verse  14,)  and  a  feeling  of 
confidence  that  Israel  will  not  be  forsaken,  (ibid.)  Various  reasons 
have  been  given  for  this  reticence,  (Carpzov,  Introduct.  p.  369  ;  Baum- 
garten,  De  Fide  Lib.  Estheris,  p.  58  ;  Home,  Introduction,  vol.  v. 
p.  69,  &c. ;)  but  they  are  conjectural,  and  so  uncertain.  One  thing 
only  is  clear,  that  if  a  Jew  in  later  times  had  wished  to  palm  upon  his 
countrymen,  as  an  ancient  and  authentic  narrative,  a  work  which  he 
had  composed  himself,  he  would  have  taken  care  not  to  raise  suspicion 
against  his  work  by  such  an  omission.  (See  the  remarks  of  Professor 
Stuart,  Defence  of  the  Canon,  p.  311.) 

NOTE  LXXIL,  p.  146. 

The  grounds  upon  which  the  historical  character  of  the  Book  of 
Esther  is  questioned,  are  principally  the  following:— (1.)  The  Persian 
king  intended  by  Ahasuerus  seems  to  be  Xerxes.  As  Esther  cannot  be 
identified  with  Amestris,  the  daughter  of  Otanes,  who  really  ruled 
Xerxes,  the  whole  story  of  her  being  made  queen,  and  of  her  great 
power  and  influence,  becomes  impossible.  (2.)  Mordecai,  having  been 
carried  into  captivity  with  Jechoniah,  (in  B.  C.  588,)  must  have  been 
120  years  old  in  Xerxes'  twelfth  year,  (B.  C.  474,)  and  Esther  must 
have  been  "  a"  superannuated  beauty."  (3.)  A  Persian  king  would 
never  have  invited  his  queen  to  a  carousal.  (4.)  The  honors  paid  to 
Mordecai  are  excessive.  (5.)  The  marriage  with  a  Jewess  is  impossi 
ble,  since  the  queens  were  taken  exclusively  from  the  families  of  the 
seven  conspirators.  (6.)  Esther's  concealment  of  her  Jewish  descent, 
and  Hainan's  ignorance  of  her  relationship  to  Mordecai,  are  highly 
improbable.  (7.)  The  two  murderous  decrees,  the  long  notice  given, 
and  the  tameness  ascribed  to  both  Jews  and  Persians,  are  incredible. 
(8.)  The  massacre  of  more  than  75,000  Persians  by  the  Jews  in  a  day, 
without  the  loss  (so  far  as  appears)  of  a  man,  transcends  belief,  and  is 
an  event  of  such  a  nature  that  "  no  amount  of  historical  evidence  would 
render  it  credible."  (See  Mr.  Parker's  additions  to  De  Wette,  vol.  ii. 
pp.  340-345.)  It  is  plain  that  none  of  these  objections  are  of  very 
great  weight.  The  first,  second,  and  last  are  met  and  refuted  in  the 
text.  To  the  third  it  is  enough  to  answer,  in  De  Wette's  own  words, 
(Einleitung,  §  198  a,  p.  267,  that  such  an  invitation  is  "possible  on 


364  NOTES.  LECT.  V. 

account  of  the  advancing  corruption  in  Xerxes'  time,  and  through  the 
folly  of  Xerxes  himself."  To  the  fourth  we  may  reply,  that  the  honors, 
being  analogous  (as  De  Wette  observes)  to  those  paid  to  Joseph,  are 
thereby  shown  to  be  not  greater  than  under  some  circumstances  were 
assigned  to  benefactors  by  Eastern  monarchs.  Nor  would  any  one 
acquainted  with  the  East  make  the  objection.  The  fifth  objection  is 
met  by  observing,  that  when  Cambyses  wished  to  marry  his  sister, 
which  was  as  much  against  the  law  as  marrying  a  Jewess,  and  con 
sulted  the  royal  judges  on  the  point,  they  told  him,  that  there  was  no 
law,  so  far  as  they  knew,  which  allowed  a  man  to  marry  his  sister,  but 
that  there  was  a  law  to  this  effect,  that  the  Persian  king  might  do  what 
he  pleased.  The  sixth  objection  scarcely  needs  a  reply,  for  its  answer  is 
contained  in  the  preceding  objection.  If  it  was  contrary  to  Persian 
law  that  the  king  should  marry  a  Jewess,  the  fact  of  Esther's  national 
ity  would  be  sure  to  be  studiously  concealed.  Finally,  to  the  seventh 
objection  we  may  answer,  that  the  murderous  tenor  of  the  decrees  is 
credible  (as  De  Wette  confesses)  on  account  of  the  "base  character  and 
disposition  of  Xerxes  "  —  that  the  length  of  notice  in  the  first  instance 
was  the  consequence  of  Haman's  superstition,  while  the  length  of  the 
notice  in  the  second  instance  followed  necessarily  upon  the  first  —  and 
that  no  "tameness"  is  proved  by  the  mere  silence  of  Scripture  as  to 
the  number  of  Jews  who  fell  in  the  struggle.  "The  author  of  the 
book,"  as  Professor  Stuart  observes,  "  is  wholly  intent  upon  the  vic 
tory  and  the  deliverance  of  the  Jews.  The  result  of  the  encounter  he 
relates,  viz.,  the  great  loss  and  humiliation  of  Persian  enemies.  But 
how  much  it  cost  to  achieve  this  victory  he  does  not  relate.  .  .  .  "NVe 
can  scarcely  doubt  that  many  Jews  were  killed  or  wounded."  (History 
and  Defence  of  the  O.  T.  Canon,  §  21,  pp.  309,  310.) 

NOTE  LXXIIL,  p.  HG. 
Carpzov,  Introductio,  c.  xx.  §  4,  pp.  360,  361. 

NOTE  LXXIV.,  p.  146. 

Carpzov,  §  6,  pp.  368,  369.  This  was  probably  the  ground  of  Lu 
ther's  objections  to  the  Canonicity  of  Esther.  (De  Servo  Arbitrio,  p. 
118,  et  alibi.)  It  may  also  have  caused  the  omission  of  Esther  from 
some  lists  of  the  canonical  books  in  the  fathers.  (Athanas.  Ep.  Festal,, 


LECT.  V.  NOTES.  365 

vol.  i.  p.  963  ;  Synops.  S.  S.,  vol.  ii.  p.  128  ;  Melito  ap.  Euseb.  Hist. 
Eccl.,  iv.  26,  &c.  In  recent  times  the  objection  has  not  been  much 
pressed. 

NOTE  LXXV.,  p.  148. 

See  Sir  II.  Rawlinson's  Memoir  on  the  Persian  Cuneiform  Inscriptions, 
vol.  i.  pp.  197-200,  273,  274,  280,  286,  291,  299,  320,  324,  327,  330, 
335,  338,  and  342. 

NOTE  LXXVL,  p.  148. 
Ibid.,  pp.  285,  291,  319,  323,  &c. 

NOTE  LXXVH.,  p.  148. 

Ewald,  Geschichte  d.  Volkes  Israel,  vol.  iii.  part  ii.  p.  118  ;  Winer, 
RealwOrterbuch,  ad  vocc.  Ahasuerus  and  Artachschaschta ;  Kitto,  Bib 
lical  Cyclopcedia,  vol.  i.  pp.  98  and  229,  &c. 

NOTE  LXXVIIL,  p.  148. 

The  Pseudo-Smerdis  seems  to  have  been  known  by  several  names. 
According  to  Darius,  (Behist.  Inscr.,  col.  i.  par.  11,)  his  true  name  was 
Gomates,  (Gaumata,}  and  he  gave  himself  out  for  Smerdis,  (Bardiya.} 
According  to  Justin,  (i.  9,  §  9,)  he  was  called  Oropastes.  As  Arta- 
xerxes  means  "  Great  King,  Great  Warrior,"  (see  the  author's  Herodotus, 
vol.  iii.  p.  552,)  it  may  perhaps  have  been  in  common  use  as  an  epithet 
of  any  Persian  monarch.  The  application  to  Cambyses  of  the  name 
Ahasuerus  (=  Xerxes)  is  still  more  curious.  Cambyses  was  known 
as  Kembath  in  Egypt,  Kabujiya  in  Persia,  Via^ixr^  in  Greece.  It  is  cer 
tainly  very  remarkable  that  the  Jews  should  only  know  him  as  Xerxes. 
Perhaps  the  theory  of  Mr.  Howes  {Pictorial  Bible,  ad  loc.)  with  respect 
to  the  Ahasuerus  of  Ezra  iv.  6,  viz.,  that  Xerxes  is  intended,  might  be 
adopted,  without  the  adoption  of  his  view  that  the  Artaxerxes  of  the 
next  verse  is  Artaxerxes  Longimanus.  The  author  may  go  on  in  verse 
6  to  a  fact  subsequent  to  the  time  of  Darius,  whom  he  has  mentioned 
in  verse  5,  and  then  return  in  verse  7  to  a  time  anterior  to  Darius. 
But  Mr.  Howes's  view  of  the  Artaxerxes  of  verse  7  is  incompatible 
with  the  nexus  of  verses  23  and  24. 

31* 


366  NOTES.  LECT.  V. 


NOTE  LXXIX.,  p.  148. 

The  reigns  are  in  each  case  four  —  Cyrus,  Cambyses,  Smerdis  the 
Mage,  Darius  Hystaspis,  in  profane  history  —  Cyrus,  Ahasuerus,  Ar- 
taxerxes,  Darius,  in  Ezra.  The  harmony  of  the  chronology  is  best 
seen  from  Zechariah.  That  prophet  implies  that  70  years  were  not 
completed  from  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem  in  the  second  year  of 
Darius,  (Zech.  i.  7  and  12  ;)  but  that  they  were  completed  two  years 
later,  in  the  fourth  year  of  that  prince,  (ib.  yii.  5.)  He  therefore,  it 
would  seem,  placed  the  completion  in  Darius's  3d  or  4th  year ;  i.  e. 
in  B.  C.  519  or  518.  Taking  the  latter  date,  and  counting  back  by  the 
years  of  the  Astronomical  Canon,  we  find  the  first  of  the  seventy 
years  to  fall  into  B.  C.  587.  Now  this  appears  by  the  same  Canon  to 
have  been  the  18th  of  Nebuchadnezzar,  which  was  the  exact  year  of 
the  destruction  of  Jerusalem,  (Jer.  lii.  29.)1  Thus  the  two  chronolo 
gies  harmonize  exactly. 

NOTE  LXXX.,  p.  149. 
See  the  Behistun  Inscript.,  col.  i.  par.  14. 

NOTE  LXXXL,  p.  149. 
Behist.  Inscr.,  1.  s.  c. 

NOTE  LXXXIL,  p.  150. 

The  length  of  the  Persian  kings'  reigns  from  the  time  of  Darin* 
Hystaspis  to  that  of  Darius  No  thus  is  fixed  beyond  the  possibility  of 
doubt.  Besides  the  Greek  contemporary  notices,  which  would  form  a 
very  fair  basis  for  an  exact  chronology,  we  have  the  consentient  testi 
mony  on  the  point  of  Babylonian  and  Egyptian  tradition,  preserved  to 
us  in  the  Astronomical  Canon  and  in  Manetho,  as  reported  by  Eu«e- 
bius.  From  both  it  appears,  that  from  the  sixth  year  of  Darius  to  the 
seventh  of  Artaxerxes  (Longimanu*)  was  a  period  of  58  years. 

1  In  2  Kings  xxv.  8,  we  find  the  nineteenth  year  mentioned  as  that  of  the  destruction, 
instead  of  the  eighteenth.  I  believe  the  cause  of  this  difference  to  be,  that  some  reck 
oned  the  reign  of  Nebuchadnezzar  to  have  commenced  in  B.  C.  605  —  the  last  year  of 
Nabopolassar  —  when  Nebuchadnezzar  came  into  Palestine  as  his  father's  represen 
tative,  defeated  Necho.  and  made  Jehoiakim  tributary.  (See  Lecture  IV..  Note  LXXXT.) 


LECT.  V.  NOTES.  367 


NOTE  LXXXm.,  p.  150. 

The  Persian  word  is  read  as  Khskayarsha.  Ahasuerus 
only  differs  from  Khshayarsha  by  the  adoption  of  the  prosthetic  j$, 
which  the  Hebrews  invariably  placed  before  the  Persian  Khsk,  and  the 
substitution  of  ^  for  h,  a  common  dialectic  variation.  Gesenius, 
(Thesaurus,  vol.  i.  p.  75,)  and  Winer  (RealwOrterbuch,  ad  voc.  Ahas 
uerus)  admit  the  identity  of  the  words. 

NOTE  LXXXIV.,  p.  150. 

The  construction  of  Esther  ii.  5,  6,  is  ambiguous.  The  word 
44  who,"  (TiL'&,)  at  the  commencement  of  verse  6,  may  refer  either  to 
Mordecai,  the  chief  subject  of  the  narrative,  or  to  Kish,  the  last  indi 
vidual  mentioned  in  verse  5.  If  Kish  was  carried  off  by  Nebuchad 
nezzar  about  B.  C.  597,  we  should  expect  to  find  his  great  grandson 
living  in  B.  C.  485-465,  four  generations  or  130  years  afterwards. 

NOTE  LXXXV.,  p.  151. 
See  Herod,  vii.  19,  20. 

NOTE  LXXXVL,  p.  151. 
Ibid.  ix.  108. 

NOTE  LXXXYH.,  p.  151. 

De  Wette,  Einleitung,  §  198  a,  p.  267  ;  vol.  ii.  p.  337,  Parker's 
Translation. 

NOTE  LXXXVHL,  p.  151. 

Amestris  was  the  daughter  of  Otanes,  according  to  Herodotus, 
(vii.  61  ;)  according  to  Ctesias,  of  Onophas,  or  Anaphes,  (Exc.  Pers., 
§  20.)  It  has  been  maintained,  that  she  was  Esther  by  Scaliger  and 
Jahn ;  but,  besides  other  objections,  the  character  of  Amestris  makes 
this  very  improbable.  (See  Herod,  vii.  114;  ix.  112;  Ctes.  Exc. 
Pers.,  §  40-43.) 


368  NOTES.  LECT.  V. 

NOTE  LXXXIX.,  p.  152. 

Einleitung,  §  199  ;  p.  268.  The  following  points  of  exact  knowledge 
are  noted  by  De  Wette's  Translator  (vol.  ii.  p.  346)  more  distinctly 
than  by  De  Wette  himself:  —  1.  The  unchangeableness  of  the  royal 
edicts  ;  2.  The  prohibition  of  all  approach  to  the  king  without  permis 
sion  ;  3.  The  manner  of  publishing  decrees  ;  4.  The  employment  of 
eunuchs  in  the  seraglio  ;  5.  The  absence  of  women  at  banquets;  6.  The 
use  of  lots  in  divination  ;  and,  7.  The  sealing  of  decrees  with  the  royal 
signet.  (Compare  Herod,  iii.  128.)  To  these  may  be  added,  1.  The 
general  character  of  the  Persian  palaces,  (i.  5,  6  ;  compare  Loftus's 
Chaldaa  and  Susiana,  pp.  373-375  ;)  2.  The  system  of  posts,  (viii.  10  ; 
Herod,  viii.  98  ;)  3.  The  law  that  each  wife  should  go  in  to  the  king  in 
her  turn,  (ii.  12  ;  Herod,  iii.  69  ;)  4.  The  en  try  in  "the  book  of  records  " 
of  the  names  and  acts  of  royal  benefactors,  (ii.  23  ;  vi.  1,  2  ;  Herod,  vii. 
194  ;  viii.  85,  90,  &c. ;)  and,  5.  The  principle  that  all  such  persons  had 
a  right  to  a  reward,  (vi.  3  ;  Herod,  iii.  140  ;  viii.  85  ;  ix.  107.) 

NOTE  XC.,  p.  152. 
Herod,  iii.  79  ;  Ctes.  Exc.  Pers.,  §  15. 

NOTE  XCL,  p.  152. 

Some  writers  have  supposed  that  the  Artaxerxes  who  befriended  Ezra 
\vas  really  Xerxes.  So  Josephus,  (Ant.  Jud.  xi.  5  ;)  who  is  followed  by 
J.  D.  Michaelis,  (ad  loc.,)  Jahn,  (Einlettung,  vol.  ii.  p.  276,)  and  others. 
But  there  seems  to  be  no  good  reason  for  supposing  him  to  have  been  a 
different  person  from  the  Artaxerxes  of  Nehemiah,  who  is  allowed  on 
all  hands  to  be  Longimanus.  (See  the  article  on  ARTAXERXES  in 
Kitto's  Biblical  Cyclopedia,  where  the  question  is  ably  argued.)  That 
the  Artaxerxes  of  Nehemiah  is  Longimanus,  appears  from  the  length 
of  his  reign,  (Neh.  v.  14,)  combined  with  the  fact  that  he  was  contem 
porary  with  the  grandsons  or  great-grandsons  of  those  who  were  con 
temporary  with  Cyrus.1 

i  The  length  of  his  reign,  32  years  at  the  least,  shows  him  to  have  been  either  Lon 
gimanus  or  Mnemon.  But  as  Eliashib,  the  grandson  of  Joshua,  who  went  from  Babylon 
as  high-priest  in  the  first  year  of  Cyrus,  (B.  C.  538.)  is  still  alive  in  the  32d  year  of  Nehe- 
miah's  Artaxerxes.  (Xeh.  xiii.  6,  7,)  it  seems  quite  impossible  that  he  can  be  Mnemon, 
whose  G2i)d  year  ira-i  B.  C.  37-1.  (See  the  author's  Herodotus,  vol.  i  v.  pp.  2  H),  2  '1 .  notv  1:!.) 


LECT.  VI.  NOTES.  369 

NOTE  XCII.,  p.  152. 
Ctesias  ap.  Phot.  Bibliothec.,  pp.  115-124. 

NOTE  XCIIL,  p.  153. 

On  the  non-historical  character  of  the  Book  of  Judith,    see  the 
author's  Herodotus,  vol.  i.  p.  245,  note  8. 


LECTURE    VI. 

NOTE  I.,  p.  155. 

On  the  different  views  entertained  as  to  the  exact  year  of  our  Lord's 
birth,  see  Olshausen's  Biblischer  Commentar,  vol.  ii.  pp.  619-622  ;  vol. 
iv.  pp.  334-337,  E.  T.1  On  the  testimonies  which  determine  the  death 
of  Herod  the  Great  to  the  year  of  Rome  750,  see  Clinton's  Fasti  Hel- 
lenici,  vol.  iii.  pp.  254  and  256.  The  Nativity  thus  falls  at  least  as 
early  as  A.  U.  C.  749,  and  the  vision  of  Zachariah  as  early  as  A.  U.  C. 
748.  Some  important  astronomical  reasons  are  assigned  by  Dean 
Alford  (Greek  Testament,  vol.  i.  p.  7)  for  believing  that  the  actual  year 
of  the  Nativity  was  A.  U.  C.  747,  or  seven  years  before  the  Christian  era. 

The  termination  of  the  history  of  the  Acts  has  also  been  variously 
placed,  in  A.  D.  58,  59,  61,  62,  63,  64,  and  65.  (See  Olshausen,  1.  s.  c.) 
I  prefer  the  shorter  reckoning  on  the  grounds  stated  by  Dr.  Burton. 
(Ecclesiastical  History  of  the  First  Three  Centuries,  vol.  i.  pp.  277,  278.) 

NOTE  II.,  p.  157. 
See  Lecture  II.,  p.  51. 

NOTE  HI.,  p.  157. 
Strauss,  Leben  Jesu,  §  13  ;  p.  56,  E.  T. 

l  Commentary  on  the  Gospels  and  the  Jlcts,  by  Hermann  Olshausen,  D.  D.  Translated 
by  the  Ilev.  U.  B.  Croak,  A.  M.  Third  edition.  Edinburgh,  Clarke,  1857. 


870  NOTES.  LECT.  VI. 

NOTE  IV.,  p.  158. 
Strauss,  Leben  Jesu,  1.  s.  c. 

NOTE  V.,  p.  158. 
Ibid.  §  14  ;  p.  84,  E.  T. 

NOTE  VI.,  p.  158. 
Ibid.  §  13  ;  p.  56,  E.  T. 

NOTE  VH.,  p.  158. 
Ibid.  1.  s.  c. ;  pp.  62,  63,  E.  T. 

NOTE  VIII.,  p.  159. 

In  the  Syriac  Version  of  Matthew,  which  is  undoubtedly  very  old, 
and  which  some  regard  as  of  nearly  equal  authority  with  the  Greek 
Gospel,1  the  title  runs,  "  The  Gospel,  the  Preaching  of  Matthew."  The 
Persian  has,  "  The  Gospel  of  Matthew  ;  "  and  the  Arabic,  "  The  Gos 
pel  of  Saint  Matthew  the  Apostle,  which  he  wrote  in  Hebrew  by  the  in 
spiration  of  the  Holy  Spirit."  (See  Home's  Introduction,  vol.  i.  pp. 
260,  261.) 

NOTE  IX.,  p.  159. 

Herodotus,  for  example,  is  quoted  but  by  one  author  (Ctesias)  with 
in  this  period,  (B.  C.  450-350.)  In  the  next  century  (B.  C.  350-250) 
he  is  also  quoted  by  one  author,  Aristotle  ;  in  the  century  following 
(B.  C.  250-150)  he  is  not  quoted  at  all ;  in  the  fourth  century,  he  for 
the  first  time  musters  two  witnesses,  Scymnus  Chius  and  Cicero  ;  2  it  is 
not  till  the  fifth  century  from  the  time  of  his  writing  his  history,  that 
he  is  largely  and  commonly  cited  by  writers  of  the  day.  (See  Mr. 
Isaac  Taylor's  recent  work  on  the  Transmission  of  Ancient  Books  to 

1  See  Dr.  Cureton's  recent  work,  Remains  of  a  very  Ancient  Recension  of  the  four 
Gospels  in  Syriac,  London.  1858. 

2  Posidonius  should  perhaps  be  added  as  a  third  witness  belonging  to  this  period.     He 
quoted  Herodotus,  not  very  correctly,  in  his  Treatise  concerning  the  Ocean.     (Fr.  Hist. 
Or.,  vol.  iii.  p.  279.) 


LECT.  VI.  NOTES.  371 

Modern  Times,  pp.  295-299.)  The  first  distinct  quotation  !  of  Thu- 
cydides  seems  to  be  that  by  Hermippus,  Fragm.  Hist.  Gr.,  vol.  iii.  p.  48, 
Fr.  54,)  who  lived  about  B.  C.  200,  nearly  two  centuries  after  him. 
Posidonius,  writing  about  B.  C.  75,  first  quotes  Polybius,  who  wrote 
about  B.  C.  150.  Livy  is,  I  believe,  only  quoted  by  Quinctilian  among 
writers  of  the  century  following  him ;  Tacitus,  though  mentioned  as  a 
writer  by  the  younger  Pliny,  is  first  cited  —  nearly  a  century  after  his 
death  —  by  Tertullian.  If  the  reader  will  cast  his  eye  over  the  "  Testi 
monies,"  as  they  are  called,  prefixed  to  most  old  editions  of  the  classics, 
he  will  easily  convince  himself  of  the  general  truth  of  the  assertion, 
upon  which  I  have  ventured  in  the  text.  The  argument  is  one  ad 
vanced,  but  without  proof,  by  Paley.  (Evidences,  Part  i.  ch.  10 ;  p. 
104.) 

NOTE  X.,  p.  160. 

Strauss,  Leben  Jesu,  §  13  ;  p.  56,  E.  T. 

NOTE  XI.,  p.  160. 

See  Lecture  II.,  pp.  51-56 ;  and  Note  VHI.  on  Lecture  V.,  pp.  346, 
347. 

NOTE  XII.,  p.  161. 

See  Home's  Introduction,  vol.  v.  p.  113  ;  Kitto,  Biblical  Cyclopaedia, 
vol.  ii.  p.  582. 

NOTE  XIII.,  p.  161. 

See  Grabe,  Spicilegium  Patrum,  vol.  ii.  p.  225  ;  Pearson,  Vindicice 
Ignatiana,  Pars  i.  c.  6  ;  Burton,  Ecclesiastical  History,  vol.  ii.  pp.  29, 
30  ;  and  p.  152. 

NOTE  XIV.,  p.  161. 

Constitutiones  Apostolicce,  vi.  16  ;  Irenseus,  adv.  Hares,  i.  20  ;  &c. 

NOTE  XV.,  p.  162. 

Strauss,  Leben  Jesu,  §  13  ;  pp.  62,  63  ;  E.  T.  Some  writers  have  main 
tained  that  the  expression,  "  according  to  Matthew,"  is  exactly  equiv 
alent  to  the  genitive  of  Matthew.  (See  Home's  Introduction,  vol.  v.  p. 

1  Cratippus  alluded  to  the  tact  that  there  were  no  speeches  in  the  last  rook,  and  that 
the  work  was  left  unfinished ;  but  he  did  not  (so  far  as  we  know)  make  any  quotation. 
(/•V.  Hist.  Gr.,  vol.  ii.  p.  76.) 


372  NOTES.  LECT.  VI. 

260.)  Olshausen  observes  more  correctly,  that  the  expression  is  am 
biguous.  It  may  mark  actual  and  complete  authorship,  as  in  the  pas 
sage  quoted  from  2  Maccab.  in  the  text ;  or  it  may  mean  editorship,  as 
in  the  phrase  "Homer  according  to  Aristarchus."  The  unanimous  testi 
mony  of  the  early  Christian  writers  proves  that,  as  applied  to  the 
Gospels,  it  was  used  in  the  former  sense.  If  it  be  asked  why  the 
simple  genitive*was  not  used,  Olshausen  replies,  (rightly,  as  it  seems  to 
me,)  because  the  Gospel  was  known  as  "the  Gospel  of  Jesus  Christ." 
Piety,  therefore,  made  the  use  of  such  phrases  as  "  Gospel  of  Matthew," 
"Gospel  of  Mark,"  "impossible."  (Biblischer  Commentary  Einleitung, 
$  4 ;  p.  11,  note.) 

NOTE  XVI.,  p.  162. 

Faustus,  the  Manichsean,  did  indeed  attempt  to  prove  that  the  first 
Gospel  was  not  the  work  of  St.  Matthew  ;  but,  1.  He  wrote  late  in  the 
fourth  century ;  and,  2.  It  seems  that  he  could  find  no  flaw  in  the  ex 
ternal  evidence,  since  he  based  his  conclusion  on  an  internal  difficulty 
—  the  use  of  the  third  instead  of  the  first  person  by  the  supposed 
writer,  (Matt.  ix.  9.)  Eichhorn,  having  ventured  on  the  assertion,  that 
"  many  ancient  writers  of  the  Church  doubted  the  genuineness  of  many 
parts  of  our  Gospels,"  is  only  able  to  adduce  in  proof  of  it  this  instance 
of  Faustus.  (See  his  Einleitung  in  das  N.  Test.,  vol.  i.  p.  145.) 

NOTE  XVH.,  p.  162. 

Irenaeus  says — "Now  Matthew  published  his  treatise  on  the  Gos 
pel  among  the  Hebrews,  in  their  own  dialect,  while -Peter  and  Paul 
were  preaching  in  Rome,  and  founding  the  church  there.  But  after 
their  death,  Mark,  the  disciple  and  interpreter  of  Peter,  also  wrote 
down  what  Peter  had  preached,  and  delivered  it  to  us.  And  Luke 
also,  the  follower  of  Paul,  wrote  out  in  a  book  the  Gospel  which  was 
preached  by  that  Apostle.  Afterwards  John,  the  disciple  of  the  Lord, 
who  also  leaned  upon  his  breast,  —  he  too  published  a  Gospel,  while  he 
was  living  at  Ephesus  in  Asia."  (Advers.  Hares.,  iii.  1.)  And  again,  — 
"These  things  are  in  accordance  with  the  Gospels,  in  which  Christ  is 
enshrined.  For  that  of  John  relates  his  princely  birth  and  glorious 
lineage  from  the  Father,  saying,  <  In  the  beginning  was  the  Word,'  &c. 
And  that  of  Luke,  as  being  more  of  a  sacerdotal  character,  begins  with 
the  priest  Zacharias,  burning  incense  to  God.  .  .  .  Matthew  declares 


LECT.  VI.  NOTES.  373 

his  human  birth,  saying,  'The  book  of  the  generation  of  Jesus  Christ,' 
&c.  Mark,  as  partaking  more  of  the  prophetic  spirit,  begins  by  say 
ing,  'The  beginning  of  the  Gospel  of  Jesus  Christ,'  &c."  (Ibid.  iii.  11, 
§11.) 

Clement — "The  digest  of  the  contents  of  the  Gospels  should  be  pre 
ceded  by  an  account  of  their  origin.  The  Gospel  of  Mark  had  its  origin 
in  this  way :  When  Peter  was  preaching  the  word  publicly  in  Rome, 
and  proclaiming  the  gospel  under  the  inspiration  of  the  Spirit,  many 
of  those  who  heard  him  besought  Mark,  as  having  been  his  follower 
for  a  long  time,  and  as  having  in  remembrance  what  he  had  heard,  to 
write  out  the  things  spoken  by  Peter.  Having  thus  composed  a  Gospel, 
he  gave  it  to  those  who  had  requested  it.  When  Peter  knew  this,  he 
neither  strictly  forbade  nor  positively  approved.  But  John,  the  last 
one,  perceiving  that  what  related  to  the  outward  had  been  exhibited  in 
the  (other)  Gospels,  in  compliance  with  the  solicitations  of  his  friends, 
and  under  the  promptings  of  the  Divine  Spirit,  wrote  a  spiritual 
Gospel."  (Ap.  Euseb.  Hist.  Eccles.  vi.  14.) 

Tertullian  writes  —  "In  fine,  if  it  is  evident  that  what  is  most 
ancient  is  truest,  that  what  is  from  the  beginning  is  most  ancient, 
and  that  what  is  from  the  Apostles  is  from  the  beginning,  then 
it  will  be  equally  evident,  that  what  has  been  sanctioned  among  the 
churches  of  the  Apostles  is  handed  down  from  the  Apostles.  I^t  us  see 
what  milk  the  Corinthians  imbibed  from  Paul  ;  according  to  what 
rule  were  the  Galatians  corrected  ;  what  did  the  Philippians  read, 
the  Thessalonians,  the  Ephesians ;  what  do  the  nearer  Romans  say, 
to  whom  both  Peter  and  Paul  left  a  gospel  sealed  with  their  blood. 
We  have  also  churches  that  were  under  the  tuition  of  John.  ...  I  say 
therefore  that  among  these,  —  I  do  not  mean  the  Apostolical  churches 
merely,  but  among  all  which  are  united  with  them  in  sacramental  com 
munion,  —  this  Gospel  of  Luke,  which  we  regard  with  the  highest  rev 
erence,  has  been  received  from  the  time  when  it  was  first  published. 
.  .  .  The  same  authority  of  the  Apostolical  churches  supports  also  the 
other  Gospels  which  we  have  received  from  them,  and  which  we  esteem 
just  as  they  esteem  them  ;  I  mean  those  of  John  and  Matthew  ;  that 
also  which  Mark  published  we  may  be  allowed  to  call  Peter's,  for 
Mark  was  his  interpreter.  Indeed  Luke's  digest  also  is  commonly 
ascribed  to  Paul.  For  what  the  disciples  publish  is  regarded  as  com- 
ing  from  the  master."  (Adv.  Marcion.,  iv.  5.) 

32 


374  NOTES.  LECT.  VI. 

Origen  —  "I  learned  from  tradition  about  the  four  Gospels,  which 
alone  are  indisputable  in  the  church  of  God  under  the  icJiole  heaven;  — 
how  that  first  Matthew,  wh'o  was  originally  a  tax-gatherer,  but  after 
wards  an  apostle  of  Jesus  Christ,  published  his,  composed  in  the  He 
brew  language,  for  those  who  had  believed  from  among  the  Jews ;  and 
secondly,  Mark,  writing  it  according  to  Peter's  dictation  ;  and  thirdly, 
Luke,  the  Gospel  which  was  praised  by  Paul,  composing  it  for  the 
converts  from  the  Gentiles  ;  and  to  crown  all,  that  according  to  John." 
(Ap.  Euseb.  Hist.  Eccles.,  vi.  25.) 

Of  course  these  passages  do  not  form  a  hundredth  part  of  the  testi 
mony  borne  by  these  writers  to  the  authority  of  the  four  Gospels.  They 
use  them  with  the  same  frequency  and  deference  as  modern  divines. 
They  appeal  to  them  alone  in  proof  of  doctrine,  making  the  most 
marked  difference  between  them  and  such  apocryphal  "  Lives  of 
Christ"  as  they  mention.  The  student  will  find  this  portion  of  the 
Christian  evidences  drawn  out  most  fully  by  Lardner,  in  his  great 
work  on  the  Credibility  of  the  Gospel  History,  vol.  i.  pp.  283,  et  seqq. 
A  good  selection  from  the  evidence  is  made  by  Mr.  Norton,  (Genuine" 
ness  of  the  Gospels,  vol.  i.  pp.  83-105.)  Paley's  Synopsis  also  deserves 
the  attention  of  the  student.  (Evidences,  part  i.  ch.  10,  §  1.) 

NOTE  XVIII.,  p.  162. 

Justin's  ordinary  expression  is  "  the  Memoirs  of  the  Apostles,  (T& 
airofivTjtioi'djuara  rtiv  dnoffrolw ;)  but  in  one  place  he  identifies  these  Me 
moirs  with  the  Gospels  by  adding,  a  Kaliirat  tvayyilta,  «« which  are 
called  Gospels."  (ApoL,  i.  p.  83,  B.)  He  appears  to  prefer  the  former 
term  in  addressing  the  heathen,  as  more  classical.  In  his  Dialogue 
with  Trypho  he  sometimes  uses  the  term  ivayyiltoi  simply.  (Opera, 
p.  195,  D.)  These  Memoirs,  or  Gospels,  he  says,  were  composed  "  by 
the  Apostles  of  Christ  and  their  companions,"  ("  the  memoirs,  I  mean 
those  which  were  composed  by  his  Apostles  and  their  followers."  )*  It 
has  been  questioned  by  Bishop  Marsh  and  others  whether  the  quota 
tions  are  really  from  our  Gospels  ;  but  the  doubt,  if  it  deserves  the 
name,  has  (I  think)  been  wholly  set  at  rest  by  Bishop  Kaye,  (Account 
of  the  Life  and  Opinions  of  Justin  Martyr,  ch.  viii.  j>p.  132-152,)  and 
Mr.  Norton,  (Credibility,  &c.,  vol.  i.  note  E,  pp.  316-324.)  The  careful 

i  Compare  Luke  i.  1 :  "  It  seemed  good  to  me  also,  having  had  perfect  knowledge." 


LECT.  VI.  NOTES.  375 

analysis  of  the  latter  writer  exhausts  the  subject,  and  deserves  attentive 
perusal. 

NOTE  XIX.,  p.  163. 

Papias  said  —  "Now  Matthew  composed  his  book  in  the  Hebrew 
dialect ;  and  each  one  interpreted  it  as  he  was  able.  And  Mark,  who 
was  the  interpreter  of  Peter,  wrote  accurately  whatever  he  remembered, 
but  not  an  orderly  account  of  what  was  said  and  done  by  Christ." 
(Ap.  Euseb.,  Hist.  Eccles.  iii.  39.) 

It  has  been  questioned  whether  Papias  was  really  a  disciple  of  the 
apostle  John,  (Strauss,  Leben  Jesii,  §  13,)  or  only  of  a  certain  John  the 
Presbyter,  whom  he  calls  "a disciple  of  our  Lord."  It  appears  from 
Eusebius  (1.  s.  c.)  that  he  did  not  himself  claim  to  have  received  his 
knowledge  of  Christianity  from  the  apostles  themselves.  Still  the  testi 
mony  of  Irenseus  is  express,  ("Papias,  who  was  a  hearer  of  John,  and 
a  companion  of  Polycarp,"  Euseb.  1.  s.  c.,)  and  cannot  without  violence 
be  understood  of  any  one  but  St.  John  the  Evangelist. 

NOTE  XX.,  p.  163. 

Leben  Jesu,  §  14.  "  It  is  however  by  no  means  necessary  to  attribute 
this  same  freedom  from  all  conscious  intention  of  fiction  to  the  authors 
of  all  those  narratives  in  the  Old  and  New  Testament,  which  must  be 
considered  as  unhistorical.  .  .  .  The  authors  of  the  Homeric  songs 
could  not  have  believed  that  every  particular  which  they  related  of  their 
gods  and  heroes  had  really  happened ;  .  .  .  and  exactly  as  little  may 
this  be  said  of  all  the  unhistorical  narratives  of  the  Gospels,  as  for 
example,  of  the  first  chapter  of  the  third,  and  many  parts  of  the  fourth 
Gospel."  (pp.  83,  84,  E.  T.) 

NOTE  XXI.,  p.  163. 
Ibid.  §  13  ;  p.  60,  E.  T. 

NOTE  XXH.,  p.  164. 

Ibid.  1.  s.  c. 

NOTE  XXHL,  p.  164. 

See  above,  Note  I.  The  date  A.  D.  63  is  preferred  by  Bertholdt, 
Feilmoser,  Dean  Alford,  Mr.  Birks,  and  others. 


376  NOTES.  LECT.  VI. 

NOTE  XXIV.,  p.  164. 
Leben  Jesit,  §  13  ;  p.  61,  E.  T. 

NOTE  XXV.,  p.  164. 
See  above,  Note  XVII. 

NOTE  XXVI.,  p.  165. 

This  is  Burton's  conclusion,  (Eccles.  Hist.,  vol.  i.  p.  255,)  deduced 
from  the  discrepancies  in  the  external  evidence.  Dean  Alford's  unan- 
swei'able  argument  in  favor  of  the  independent  origin  of  the  first  three 
Gospels,  deduced  from  their  internal  character,  implies  the  same. 
The  first  three  Gospels  were  probably  all  written  within  the  space 
A.  D.  58-65. 

NOTE  XXVII.,  p.  166. 

The  Old  Testament  furnishes  us  with  but  one  instance  of  even  a 
second  record  —  viz.,  that  of  Chronicles ;  which  deals  with  the  period  of 
history  already  treated  in  Samuel  and  Kings.  Elsewhere  we  have 
throughout  but  a  single  narrative. 

NOTE  XXVIII.,  p.  166. 

Theophylact  and  Euthymius  placed  the  composition  of  St.  Mat 
thew's  Gospel  within  eight  years  of  the  Ascension  ;  Nicephorus  placed 
it  15  years  after  that  event ;  Cosmas  Indicopleustes  assigned  it  to  the 
time  of  the  stoning  of  Stephen.  (See  Alford's  Greek  Testament,  Pro 
legomena,  vol.  i.  p.  26.)  In  modern  times  Bishop  Tomline,  Le  Clerc, 
Dr.  Owen,  Dr.  Townson,  and  others,  incline  to  a  date  even  earlier  than 
that  fixed  by  Theophylact. 

NOTE  XXIX.,  p.  167. 

On  the  various  theories  to  which  the  combined  resemblances  and 
differences  of  the  first  three  Gospels  have  given  birth,  see  Home's  In 
troduction,  vol.  v.  Appendix,  pp.  509-529  ;  Alford's  Greek  Testament, 
vol.  i.  Prolegomena,  ch.  i.  §  2,  3  ;  and  Norton's  Genuineness  of  the 
Gospels,  vol.  i.  Note  D.  pp.  239-296.  The  last-named  writer,  after 


LECT.  VI.  NOTES.  377 

having  proved  that  no  one  of  the  first  three  Evangelists  copied  from 
another,  observes  with  much  force  —  "If  the  Evangelists  did  not  copy 
one  from  another,  it  follows,  that  the  first  three  Gospels  must  all  have 
been  written  about  the  same  period ;  since,  if  one  had  preceded  another 
by  any  considerable  length  of  time,  it  cannot  be  supposed  that  the 
author  of  the  later  Gospel  would  have  been  unacquainted  with  the  work 
of  his  predecessor,  or  would  have  neglected  to  make  use  of  it ;  espe 
cially  when  we  take  into  view,  that  its  reputation  must  have  been  well 
established  among  Christians."  And  he  concludes,  "  that  no  one  of 
the  first  three  Gospels  was  written  long  before  or  long  after  the  year 
60."  {Genuineness,  £c.,  vol.  i.  pp.  297,  298.) 

NOTE  XXX.,  p.  167. 

See  the  passage  quoted  above,  Note  XVII.,  page  372.  Irenaeus, 
it  will  be  observed,  makes  St.  Matthew  write  his  Gospel  while  St. 
Peter  and  St.  Paul  were  founding  the  Church  at  Rome,  i.  e.  during  the 
term  of  St.  Paul's  imprisonment,  (probably  A.  D.  56-58.)  He  writes 
it  "among  the  Hebrews"  —  i.  e.  in  Palestine.  After  the  two  great 
apostles  left  Rome,  and  separated  —  soon  after,  he  seems  to  mean  — 
their  respective  companions,  Mark  and  Luke,  are  said  to  have  written. 
At  least  this  is  declared  positively  of  Mark ;  less  definitely  of  Luke, 
whose  Gospel  had  perhaps  been  composed  a  year  or  two  earlier,  and 
sent  privately  to  Theophilus. 

NOTE  XXXI.,  p.  167. 

It  is  unnecessary  to  prove  this  agreement ;  which  is  such,  that  each 
of  the  three  writers  has  been  in  turn  accused  of  copying  from  one  or 
both  of  his  fellow-Evangelists.  (See  Home's  Introduction,  vol.  v. 
Appendix,  pp.  509,  510.) 

NOTE  XXXIL,  p.  167. 

This  is  one  of  the  main  objects  at  which  Strauss  aims  in  the  greater 
portion  of  his  work.  See  Sections  21,  24,  39,  46,  53,  57,  59,  &c.  &c. 

32* 


378  NOTES.  LECT.  VI. 


NOTE  XXXIII.,  p.  168. 

If  we  take,  for  example,  the  second  of  the  sections  in  which  the 
"  disagreements  of  the  Canonical  Gospels"  are  expressly  considered, 
(§  24,)  we  find  the  following  enumeration  of  "  discrepancies,"  in  rela 
tion  to  the  form  of  the  Annunciation.  "1.  The  individual  who 
appears  is  called  in  Matthew  an  angel  of  the  Lord ;  in  Luke,  the  angel 
Gabriel.  2.  The  person  to  whom  the  angel  appears  is,  according  to 
Matthew,  Joseph;  according  to  Luke,  Mary.  3.  In  Matthew,  the 
apparition  is  seen  in  a  dream,  in  Luke  while  awake.  4.  There  is  a 
disagreement  with  respect  to  the  time  at  which  the  apparition  took 
place.  5.  Both  the  purpose  of  the  apparition,  and  the  effect,  are  dif 
ferent."  In  this  way  five  "  discrepancies  "  are  created  out  of  the  single 
fact,  that  St.  Matthew  does  not  relate  the  Annunciation  to  the  Virgin, 
while  St.  Luke  gives  no  account  of  the  angelic  appearance  to  Joseph. 
Similarly  in  the  section  where  the  calling  of  the  first  Apostles  is  exam 
ined,  (§  70,)  "  discrepancies"  are  seen  between  the  fourth  and  the  first 
two  Evangelists  in  the  following  respects  —  "  1.  James  is  absent  from 
St.  John's  account,  and  instead  of  his  vocation,  we  have  that  of  Philip 
and  Nathaniel.  2.  In  Matthew  and  Mark  the  scene  is  the  coast  of. 
the  Galilaean  sea  ;  in  John  it  is  the  vicinity  of  the  Jordan.  3.  In  each 
representation  there  are  two  pairs  of  brothers  ;  but  in  the  one  they  are 
Andrew  and  Peter,  James  and  John  ;  in  the  other,  Andrew  and  Peter, 
Philip  and  Nathaniel.  And,  4.  In  Matthew  and  Mark  all  are  called  by 
Jesus ;  in  John,  Philip  only,  the  others  being  directed  to  him  by  the 
Baptist."  Here  again  we  have  four  discrepancies  made  out  of  the  cir 
cumstance,  that  the  first  two  Evangelists  relate  only  the  actual  call  of 
certain  disciples,  while  St.  John  informs  us  what  previous  acquaintance 
they  had  of  Jesus.  So  from  the  mere  silence  of  Matthew,  Strauss 
concludes  positively  that  he  opposes  St.  Luke,  and  did  not  consider 
Nazareth,  but  Bethlehem,  to  have  been  the  original  residence  of  our 
Lord's  parents,  (§  39  ;)  from  the  omission  by  the  three  earlier  writers 
of  the  journeys  into  Judrca  during  our  Lord's  Ministry,  he  pronounces 
that  they  "  contradict"  St.  John,  who  speaks  of  such  journeys,  (57  ;) 
he  finds  a  «'  discrepancy  "  between  this  Evangelist's  account  of  the 
•  relations  between  the  Baptist  and  our  Lord,  and  the  account  of  the 
others,  since  he  gives,  and  they  do  not  give,  the  testimony  borne  by  the 
former  to  our  Lord's  charaotor,  ($  46;)  he  concludes  from  St.  Luke's 


LECT.  VI.  NOTES.  379 

not  saying  that  St.  John  was  in  prison  when  he  sent  his  two  disciples  to 
our  Lord,  that  he  considered  him  as  not  yet  cast  into  prison,  (ibid. ;) 
he  finds  St.  Luke's  and  St.  Matthew's  acccounts  of  the  death  of  Judas 
"irreconcilable,"  because  St.  Luke  says  nothing  of  remorse,  or  of 
suicide,  but  relates  what  has  the  appearance  of  a  death  by  accident, 
(§  130  ;)  he  regards  the  presence  of  Nicodemus  at  our  Lord's  interment 
as  a  "  fabrication  of  the  fourth  Evangelist,"  simply  because  it  is  un 
noticed  by  the  others,  (§  80 ;)  he  concludes  from  their  silence  as  to  the 
raising  of  Lazarus  that  "  it  cannot  have  been  known  to  them,"  and 
therefore  that  it  cannot  be  true,  (§  100 ;)  and  in  other  instances,  too 
numerous  to  mention,  he  makes  a  similar  use  of  the  mere  fact  of 
omission. 

NOTE  XXXIV.,  p.  169. 
See  Norton's  Credibility  of  the  Gospels,  vol.  i.  pp.  74,  75. 

NOTE  XXXV.,  p.  169. 

In  point  of  fact  there  is  scarcely  a  difficulty  brought  forward  by 
Strauss  which  has  not  been  again  and  again  noticed  and  explained  by 
biblical  commentators.  Mr.  Norton  correctly  says  of  his  volumes  — 
"They  present  a  collection  from  various  authors  of  difficulties  in  the  his 
tory  contained  in  the  Gospels,  to  which  their  expositor  should  par 
ticularly  direct  his  attention."  The  critical  portion  of  them  presents 
little  which  is  novel. 

NOTE  XXXVI.,  p.  171. 
See  Paley's  Horee  Paulina,  ch.  i.  p.  1. 

NOTE  XXXVH.,  p.  172. 
Leben  Jesu,  §  13  ;  vol.  i.  p.  60,  E.  T. 

NOTE  XXXVIII.,  p.  172. 

If  we  take,  for  example,  the  earliest  of  St.  Paul's  Epistles,  the  first 
to  the  Thessalonians,  we  shall  find  that  the  following  little  coincidences 
between  it  and  the  Acts  are  unnoticed  by  Paley  :  — 

1.  The  identity  in  the  order  of  names,  "Paul,  and  Silvanus,   and 


380  NOTES.  LECT.  VI. 

Timotheus,"  (1  Thess.  i.  1  ;  compare  Acts  xvii.  10,  15  ;  xviii.  5.)  This 
was  the  order  of  dignity  at  the  time,  and  was  therefore  naturally  used  ; 
but  had  the  Epistle  been  forged  after  St.  Paul's  death,  Timothy  would 
probably  have  taken  precedence  of  Silas,  since  owing  to  the  circum 
stance  of  St.  Paul  addressing  two  Epistles  to  him,  his  became  the  name 
of  far  greater  note  in  the  Church. 

2.  The  peculiarly  impressive  mention  of  the  Thessalonians  as  objects 
of  the  divine  election  (i.  4  ;  "  knowing,  brethren  beloved,  your  election  of 
God  ")  seems  to  be  an  allusion  to  the  fact  of  the  vision  which  summoned 
St.  Paul  into  Macedonia,  (Acts  xvi.  9,)  whereby  the  Macedonians  were 
««  chosen  out "  from  the  rest  of  the  Western  world  to  be  the  first  Euro 
pean  recipients  of  the  Gospel.     The  term  tK/.oyft  is  a  rare  one  in  Scrip 
ture,  and  is  absent,  except  in.  this  instance,  from  all  St.  Paul's  earlier 
Epistles.     It  had  been  used,  however,  of  St.  Paul  himself  in  the  vision 
seen  by  Ananias,  (Acts  ix.   15,)  with  special  reference  to  his  similar 
selection  by  miraculous  means  as  an  object  of  the  Divine  favor. 

3.  The  great  success  of  the  Gospel  at  Thessalonica  is  strongly  asserted 
in  verse o,  ("our  gospel  came  not  unto  you  in  word  only,  but  also  in 
power,"  &c.)     Compare  Acts  xvii.  4  :   "  And  some  of  them  (the  Jews) 
believed,  and  consorted  with  Paul  and  Silas,  and  of  the  devout  Greeks 
a  great  multitude,  and  of  the  chief  women  not  a  few" 

4.  The  aorist  tenses  in  ch.  i.  verses  5  and  6,  and  elsewhere,  (fywtfft;,1 
fytvi'/Orjutv,*  fycrfOrjTi,3  Sf^Qfjifvot,4  fK^v^a/jifv^  K.  r.  A.,)  point  naturally,   but 
very  unobtrusively,  to  a  single  visit  on  the  part  of  St.  Paul,  which  by 
the  history  of  the  Acts  is  exactly  what  had  taken  place. 

5.  The  peculiar  nature  of  the  Apostolic  sufferings  at  Philippi  is  hinted 
at,  without  being  fully  expressed,  in  the  term  iipptffOivris,6  (ii.  2.)     It  was 
S/fyij 7  to  scourge  a  Roman  citizen. 

6.  The   statement  that  while  at  Thessalonica  St.  Paul  toiled  and 
labored,  that  he  might  not  be  chargeable  or  burdensome  to  the  con 
verts,    (ii.  6,    9,)  though  not  directly  confirmed  by  the  history  of  the 
Acts,  is  in  harmony  with  the  fact  that  at  Corinth,  a  few  months  after 
wards,  he  wrought  at  his  craft  with  Aquila  and  Priscilla,  (Acts  xviii. 
3,)  having  the  same  object  in  view,  (1  Cor.  ix.  12  ;  2  Cor.  xi.  9  ;  xii. 
13,  &c.) 

7.  The  reference  to  the  hinderance  offered  by  the  Jews  to  St.  Paul's 

l  Came,  v.  5.        2  We  were,  v.  5.        8  Ye  became,  v.  6.        *  Having  received,  v.  G. 
*  We  preached,  ii.  0.  •  Were  shamefully  treated.  "-Shameful  treatment-. 


LECT.  VI.  NOTES.  381 

preaching  the  Gospel  to  the  Gentiles,  (ii.  16,)  accords  both  with  the 
general  conduct  of  the  Jews  elsewhere,  (Acts  xiii.  45,  50,  &c.,)  and  es 
pecially  with  their  conduct  at  Thessalonica,  where  "  being  moved  with 
envy"  (tyMaavrt?)  at  the  conversion  of  the  Gentiles,  they  "  set  all  the 
city  on  an  uproar."  (Acts  xvii.  5.) 

8.  The  expression,  "  we  would  have  come  unto  you  — even  I,  Paul— 
once  and  again,"  derives  peculiar  force  from  the  circumstance  related  in 
the  Acts,  (xvii.  14-16,)  that  after  leaving  Macedonia  he  was  for  some 
time  alone  at  Athens,  while  Silas  and  Timothy  remained  at  Bercea. 

9.  The  mention  of  "  the  brethren  throughout  all  Macedonia,"  in  ch. 
iv.  10,    harmonizes  with  the  account   in  the  Acts  that   St.  Paul  had 
founded  churches  at  Philippi  and  Bercea  as  well  as  at  Thessalonica. 
(Acts  xvi.  12-40  ;  xviii.  10-12.) 

10.  The  "affliction  and  distress "  in  which  St.  Paul  says  he  was 
(iii.  7)  at  the  time  of  Timothy's  return  from  Macedonia,  receive  illus 
tration  from  Acts  xviii.  4-6,  where  we  find  that  just  at  this  period  he 
was  striving,  but  vainly,  ("persuaded,"  Acts  xviii.  4,)  to  convert  the  Jews 
of  Corinth,  "  pressed  in  spirit,"  and  earnestly  testifying,  but  to  no  pur 
pose,  so  that  shortly  afterwards  he  had  to  relinquish  the  attempt.     What 
«'  affliction  "  this  would  cause  to  St.  Paul  we  may  gather  from  Romans 
ix.  1-5. 

NOTE  XXXIX.,  p.  173. 

I  was  not  aware,  at  the  time  of  delivering  my  sixth  Lecture,  that  any 
work  professedly  on  this  subject  had  been  published.  My  attention  has 
since  been  directed  to  a  very  excellent,  though  very  unpretending, 
treatise,  by  the  Rev.  T.  R.  Birks,  entitled,  Ilora  Apostolic^,1  and  at 
tached  to  an  annotated  edition  of  the  Horce  Paulina  of  Paley.  The 
first  chapter  of  this  treatise  contains  a  supplement  to  Paley's  examina 
tion  of  the  Pauline  Epistles.  It  will  well  repay  perusal ;  though  it  is 
still  far  from  exhausting  the  subject.  Chapter  ii.  is  concerned  with  the 
internal  coincidences  in  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles ;  and  chapter  iii.  with 
those  in  the  Gospels.  The  treatment  of  this  latter  point  is,  unfortu 
nately,  but  scanty.  No  more  than  twenty-five  pages  are  devoted  to  it, 
the  author  remarking,  that  "in  his  present  supplementary  work,  this 

l  Hora  Paulmas,  by  William  Paley,  D.D.,  with  notes,  and  a  Supplementary  Treatise, 
entitled  flora  Apostolica,  by  the  Rev.  T.  R.  Birks,  A.  M.,  late  Fellow  of  Trinity  College, 
Cambridge  :  London,  Religious  Tract  Society,  1850. 


382  NOTES.  LECT.  VII. 

branch  of  the  subject  is  confined,  of  necessity,  within  narrow  limits ; 
since  its  complete  investigation  would  demand  a  distinct  treatise,  and  the 
prosecution  of  some  deep  and  difficult  inquiries."  (Horce  Apostolicce, 
p.  188.) 

NOTE  XL.,  p.  173. 
Leben  Jesu,  §  13  ;  vol.  i.  p.  60,  E.  T. 

NOTE  XLL,  p.  173. 

,  See  on  these  points  Home's  Introduction,  vol.  v.  pp.  422-435,  and 
pp.  487,  488  ;  Kitto's  Cyclopedia,  vol.  i.  pp.  163-166,  and  826-832  ; 
and  Alford's  Greek  Testament,  vol.  iv.  part  i.  Prolegomena,  pp.  1-62. 

NOTE  XLIL,  p.  174. 
Strauss,  Leben  Jesu,  §  14,  sub  fin.  vol.  i.  p.  84,  E.  T. 

NOTE  XLHL,  p.  176. 

Ibid.  1.  s.  c.     See  above,  Note  XX. ;  where  a  passage  to  this  effect  is 
quoted  at  length. 


LECTURE     VII. 


NOTE  I.,  p.  178. 

The  only  exception  to  this  general  rule,  among  the  strictly  historical 
books,  is  the  Book  of  Ruth,  which  is  purely  biographical.  It  belongs 
to  the  Christology  of  the  Old  Testament,  but  it  has  no  bearing  on  the 
history  of  the  nation. 

NOTE  II.,  p.  179. 

So  Lardner  —  "It  is  plainly  the  design  of  the  historians  of  the  New 
Testament  to  write  of  the  actions  of  Jesus  Christ,  chiefly  those  of  his 
public  Ministry,  and  to  give  an  account  of  his  death  and  resurrection, 
and  of  some  of  the  first  steps  by  which  the  doctrine  which  he  had 


LECT.  VII.  NOTES.  383 

taught,  made  its  way  in  the  world.  But  though  this  was  their  main 
design,  and  they  have  not  undertaken  to  give  us  the  political  state  or 
history  of  the  countries  in  which  these  things  were  done  ;  yet  in  the 
course  of  their  narration  they  have  been  led  unavoidably  to  mention 
many  persons  of  note  ;  and  to  make  allusions  and  references  to  the 
customs  and  tenets  of  the  people,  whom  Jesus  Christ  and  his  apostles 
were  concerned  with."  (Credibility,  &c.,  vol.  i.  p.  7.) 

NOTE  in.,  p.  179. 

Hence  the  certainty  with  which  literary  forgeries,  if  historical,  are 
detected,  in  all  cases  where  we  possess  a  fair  knowledge  of  the  time 
and  country  to  which  they  profess  to  belong.  The  alleged  "Epistles 
of  Phalaris,"  the  pretended  Manetho,  the  spurious  Letters  of  Plato  and 
of  Chion,  were  soon  exposed  by  critics,  who  stamped  them  indelibly 
with  the  brand  of  forgery,  chiefly  by  reason  of  their  failure  in  this  par 
ticular.  It  is  important  to  bear  in  mind,  in  this  connection,  the  fact 
that  there  is  no  period  in  the  whole  range  of  ancient  history,  whereof 
we  possess  a  more  full  and  exact  knowledge  than  we  do  of  the  first 
century  of  our  era. 

NOTE  IV.,  p.  180. 

These  testimonies  have  been  adduced  by  almost  all  writers  on  the 
Evidences  of  the  Christian  Religion  ;  but  I  do  not  feel  justified  in 
omitting  them  from  the  present  review.  They  are  as  follows  :  — 

Tacitus  says,  speaking  of  the  fire  which  consumed  Rome  in  Nero's 
time,  and  of  the  general  belief  that  he  had  caused  it,  "In  order  there 
fore  to  put  a  stop  to  the  report,  he  laid  the  guilt,  and  inflicted  the 
severest  punishments,  upon  a  set  of  people  who  were  hoi  den  in  abhor 
rence  for  their  crimes,  and  called  by  the  vulgar,  Christians.  The 
founder  of  that  name  was  Christ,  who  suffered  death  in  the  reign  of  Tibe 
rius,  under  his  procurator  Pontius  Pilate.  This  pernicious  superstition, 
thus  checked  for  a  while,  broke  out  again  ;  and  spread  not  only  over 
Judea,  where  the  evil  originated,  but  through  Rome  also,  whither  all 
things  that  are  horrible  and  shamefxil  find  their  way,  and  are  practised. 
Accordingly  the  first  who  were  apprehended  confessed,  and  then  on 
their  information  a  vast  multitude  were  convicted,  not  so  much  of  the 
crime  of  setting  (Rome)  on  fire,  as  of  hatred  to  mankind.  And  when 


384  1\  0  T  E  S  .  LECT.  VII. 

they  were  put  to  death,  mockery  was  added  to  their  sufferings  ;  for 
they  were  either  disguised  in  the  skins  of  wild  beasts,  and  woiried  to 
death  by  dogs,  or  they  were  crucified,  or  they  were  clothed  in  some 
inflammable  covering,  and  when  the  day  closed  were  burned  as  lights  to 
illumine  the  night.  Nero  lent  his  own  gardens  for  this  exhibition,  and 
also  held  the  shows  of  the  circus,  mingling  with  the  people  in  the  dress 
of  a  charioteer,  or  observing  the  spectacle  from  his  chariot.  Where 
fore,  although  those  who  suffered  were  guilty,  and  deserving  of  some 
extraordinary  punishment,  yet  they  came  to  be  pitied,  as  victims  not 
so  much  to  the  public  good,  as  to  the  cruelty  of  one  man."  (Annal. 
xv.  44.) 

Suetonius  says  briefly  in  reference  to  the  same  occasion,  "  The  Chris 
tians  were  punished,  a  set  of  men  of  a  neio  and  mischievous  superstition." 
(Vit.  Neron.,  §  16.)  And  with  a  possible,  though  not  a  certain,  refer 
ence  to  our  Lord,  "  [Claudius]  expelled,  from  Rome  the  Jews,  who 
were  continually  exciting  disturbances,  at  the  instigation  of  Chrestus." 
(Vit.  Claud.,  §  25.) 

Juvenal,  with  a  meaning  which  cannot  be  mistaken,1  when  the  pas 
sage  of  Tacitus  above  quoted  has  once  been  read,  remarks  :  — 

«« Expose  Tigellinus ;  you  will  blaze  in  that  torch  where,  with  throats 
confined  and  emitting  froth,  they  stand  and  burn ;  and  you  do  but  draw 
a  broad  furrow  in  the  midst  of  the  sand."  (Sat.,  i.  155-157.) 

Pliny  writes  to  Trajan,  "It  is  my  custom,  sir,  to  refer  to  you  all 
things  about  which  I  am  in  doubt.  For  who  is  more  capable  of  direct 
ing  my  hesitancy,  or  instructing  my  ignorance  ?  I  have  never  been 
present  at  any  trials  of  the  Christians  ;  consequently  I  do  not  know 
what  is  the  nature  of  their  crimes,  or  the  usual  strictness  of  their  exam 
ination,  or  severity  of  their  punishment.  I  have  moreover  hesitated  not 
a  little,  whether  any  distinction  was  to  be  made  in  respect  to  age,  or 
whether  those  of  tender  years  were  to  be  treated  the  same  as  adults  ; 
whether  repentance  entitles  them  to  a  pardon,  or  whether  it  shall  avail 
nothing  for  him  who  has  once  been  a  Christian  to  renounce  his  error  ; 
whether  the  name  itself,  even  without  any  crime,  should  subject  them 

1  Compare  the  observations  of  the  old  Scholiast  on  the  passage.  "  In  the  public  shows 
of  Nero  living  men  were  burnt;  for  he  ordered  them  to  be  covered  with  wax,  that  they 
might  give  light  to  the  spectators."  And  again,  "  lie  covered  certain  mischievous  nieu 
(compare  Suetonius'  '  mischievous  superstition ')  with  pitch,  and  paper,  and  wax,  and  then 
commnnrled  fire  to  be  applied  to  them,  that  they  might  burn." 


LECT.  VII.  NOTES.  385 

to  punishment,  or  only  the  crimes  connected  with  the  name.  In  the 
mean  time,  I  have  pursued  this  course  towards  those  who  have  been 
brought  before  me  as  Christians.  I  asked  them  whether  they  were 
Christians  ;  if  they  confessed,  I  repeated  the  question  a  second  and  a 
third  time,  adding  threats  of  punishment.  If  they  still  persevered,  I 
ordered  them  to  be  led  away  to  punishment ;  for  I  could  not  doubt, 
whatever  the  nature  of  their  profession  might  be,  that  a  stubborn  and 
unyielding  obstinacy  certainly  deserved  to  be  punished.  There  were 
others  also  under  the  like  infatuation ;  but  as  they  were  Roman  citi 
zens,  I  directed  them  to  be  sent  to  the  capital.  But  the  crime  spread, 
as  is  wont  to  happen,  even  while  the  prosecutions  were  going  on,  and 
numerous  instances  presented  themselves.  An  information  was  pre 
sented  to  me  without  any  name  subscribed,  accusing  a  large  number  of 
persons,  who  denied  that  they  were  Christians,  or  had  ever  been. 
They  repeated  after  me  an  invocation  to  the  gods,  and  made  offerings 
with  frankincense  and  wine  before  your  statue,  which  I  had  ordered  to 
be  brought  for  this  purpose,  together  with  the  images  of  the  gods ;  and 
moreover  they  reviled  Christ ;  whereas  those  who  are  truly  Christians, 
it  is  said,  cannot  be  forced  to  do  any  of  these  things.  I  thought,  there 
fore,  that  they  ought  to  be  discharged.  Others,  who  were  accused  by 
a  witness,  confessed  that  they  were  Christians,  but  afterwards  denied 
it.  Some  owned  that  they  had  been  Christians,  but  said  they  had 
renounced  their  error,  some  three  years  before,  others  more,  and  a  few 
even  as  long  ago  as  twenty  years.  They  all  did  homage  to  your  statue 
and  the  images  of  the  gods,  and  at  the  same  time  reviled  the  name  of 
Christ.  They  declared  that  the  whole  of  their  guilt  or  their  error  was, 
that  they  were  accustomed  to  meet  on  a  stated  day  before  it  was  light, 
and  to  sing  in  concert  a  hymn  of  praise  to  Christ,  as  God,  and  to  bind 
themselves  by  an  oath,  not  for  the  perpetration  of  any  wickedness,  but 
that  they  would  not  commit  any  theft,  robbery,  or  adultery,  nor  vio 
late  their  word,  nor  refuse,  when  called  upon,  to  restore  any  thing 
committed  to  their  trust.  After  this  they  were  accustomed  to  separate, 
and  then  to  reassemble  to  eat  in  common  a  harmless  meal.  Even  this, 
however,  they  ceased  to  do,  after  my  edict,  in  which,  agreeably  to  your 
commands,  I  forbade  the  meeting  of  secret  assemblies.  After  hearing  this, 
I  thought  it  the  more  necessary  to  endeavor  to  find  out  the  truth,  by  put 
ting  to  the  torture  two  female  slaves,  who  were  called  '  deaconesses.' 
But  I  could  discover  nothing  but  a  perverse  and  extravagant  supersti- 

33 


386  NOTES.  LECT.  VII. 

tion  ;  and  therefore  I  deferred  all  further  proceedings  until  I  should  con 
sult  with  you.  For  the  matter  appears  to  me  worthy  of  such  consulta 
tion,  especially  on  account  of  the  number  of  those  who  are  involved  in 
peril.  For  many  of  every  age,  of  every  rank,  and  of  either  sex,  are 
exposed  and  will  be  exposed  to  danger.  Nor  has  the  contagion  of  this 
superstition  been  confined  to  the  cities  only,  but  it  has  extended  to  the 
villages,  and  ev.en  to  the  country.  Nevertheless,  it  still  seems  possible 
to  arrest  the  evil,  and  to  apply  a  remedy.  At  least  it  is  very  evident, 
that  the  temples,  which  had  already  been  almost  deserted,  begin  to  be 
frequented,  and  the  sacred  solemnities,  so  long  interrupted,  are  again 
revived ;  and  the  victims,  which  heretofore  could  hardly  find  a  pur 
chaser,  are  now  every  where  in  demand.  From  this  it  is  easy  to  ima 
gine  what  a  multitude  of  men  might  be  reclaimed,  if  pardon  should  be 
offered  to  those  who  repent."  (Plin.  Epist.,  x.  97.) 

Trajan  replies,  "  You  have  pursued  the  right  course,  my  dear  Pliny, 
in  conducting  the  case  of  those  Christians  who  were  brought  before 
you.  Nor  is  it  possible  to  adopt  one  uniform  and  invariable  mode  of 
proceeding.  I  would  not  have  you  seek  out  these  persons  ;  if  they  are 
brought  before  you,  and  are  convicted,  they  must  be  punished ;  yet 
with  this  proviso,  that  he  who  denies  that  he  is  a  Christian,  and  conr 
firms  this  denial  by  actually  invoking  our  gods,  however  he  may  have 
been  suspected  in  time  past,  shall  obtain  pardon  upon  his  repentance. 
But  informations  without  the  accuser's  name  subscribed,  ought  not  to 
be  received  in  prosecutions  of  any  kind ;  for  they  are  of  the  worst 
tendency,  and  are  unworthy  of  the  age  in  which  we  live."  (Ibid. 
x.  98.) 

Adrian,  in  his  rescript  addressed  to  Minucius  Fundanus,  the  Proconsul 
of  Asia,  says,1  "To  Minucius  Fundanus :  I  have  read  a  letter  addressed  to 
me  by  Serenius  Granianus,  a  most  illustrious  man,  and  your  predecessor 
in  office.  The  matter  seems  to  me  to  require  examination,  in  order  that 
peaceable  people  may  not  be  disturbed,  and  that  occasion  of  evil-doing 
may  be  taken  away  from  calumniators.  If,  therefore,  in  accusations  of 
this  sort,  the  people  of  the  province  can  clearly  affirm  any  thing  against 
the  Christians,  so  as  to  bring  the  case  before  the  tribunal,  to  this  only  let 
them  have  recourse,  and  not  to  informal  accusations  and  mere  cfemors. 
For  it  is  much  more  suitable,  if  any  one  wishes  to  bring  an  accusation, 

1  The  Latin  original  is  lost,  and  we  possess  only  Eusebius's  translation. 


LECT.  VII.  NOTES.  387 

that  it  should  come  under  your  adjudication.  If,  therefore,  any  one 
accuses  them,  and  proves  that  they  have  done  any  thing  contrary  to  the 
laws,  do  you  determine  accordingly,  in  proportion  to  the  greatness  of 
the  offence  :  but,  by  Hercules,  if  any  one  brings  forward  such  an  accu 
sation  slanderously,  take  him  and  punish  him  for  his  impudence."  (Ap. 
Euseb.  Hist.  Eccles.,  iv.  9.) 

NOTE  V.,  p.  181. 

I  refer  especially  to  Strauss  and  his  school,  who  attach  no  impor 
tance  at  all  to  the  existence  of  Christ,  but  still  allow  it  as  a  fact  which 
is  indisputable.  (See  the  Leben  Jesu,  passim.) 

NOTE  VI.,  p.  181. 
Ch.  ii.  pp.  24-30. 

NOTE  VH.,  p.  182. 

One  slight  reference  is  found,  or  rather  suspected,  in  Seneca,  (Epist. 
xiv.,)  one  in  Dio  Chrysostom,  (Orat.  Corinthiac.,  xxxvii.  p.  463,)  none 
in  Pausanius,  one  (see  the  next  note)  in  the  Epictetus  of  Arrian. 

NOTE  VIIL,  p.  182. 

Epictet.  Dissertat.  iv.  7,  §§  5,  6:  "If  any  one  now  should  so  regard 
his  possessions,  as  this  man  regards  his  body,  and  his  children,  and  his 
wife,  &c.,  what  tyrant  would  any  longer  be  terrible  to  him  ?  What 
soldiers,  or  what  weapons  of  theirs,  would  he  fear  ?  Under  the  influ 
ence  of  madness,  one  may  so  regard  these  things  ;  and  the  Galilccans  do 
it  under  the  influence  of  custom." 

NOTE  IX.,  p.  183. 

The  passage  in  the  second  book  of  the  Discourses,  (c.  9,  §  20,)  which 
has  been  supposed  by  some  to  refer  to  Christians,  seems  really  to  in 
tend  only  those  whom  it  mentions  —  viz.,  the  Jews.  (See  Lardner, 
Credibility,  &c.,  vol.  iv.  p.  49 ;  Fabricius  ad  Dion,  xxxvii.  17.) 

NOTE  X.,  p.  183. 
Thij  point  has  been  slightly  touched  by  Paley,  (Evidences,  Part  i.  ch. 


388  NOTES.  LECT.  VII. 

5,  pp.  70,  71,)  and  insisted  on  at  some  length  by  Lardner.     (Credibility, 
&c.  vol.  iv.  pp.  50,  78,  160,  &c.) 

NOTE  XI.,  p.  184. 

Josephus  was  born  in  A.  D.  37,  the  first  year  of  the  reign  of  Calig 
ula,  and  the  fourth  after  our  Lord's  ascension.  He  was  bred  up  at 
Jerusalem,  where  he  seems  to  have  continued,  with  slight  interruptions, 
till  he  was  26  years  of  age.  He  would  thus  have  been,  as  boy  and 
man,  a  witness  of  the  principal  occurrences  at  Jerusalem  mentioned  in 
the  Acts,  subsequently  to  the  accession  of  Herod  Agrippa. 

NOTE  XH.,  p.  184. 

See  Joseph.  Ant.  Jud.  xx.  9,  §  1.  This  passage  has  been  much  dis 
puted,  and  its  genuineness  is  disallowed  even  by  Lardner.  (Credibility, 
Sec.,  vol.  iii.  pp.  352-354.)  But  I  agree  with  Burton,  (Eccles.  Hist.,  vol. 
i.  p.  287,)  and  Paley,  (Evidences,  Part  i.  ch.  5,  p.  69,)  that  there  is  no 
sufficient  reason  for  the  suspicions  which  have  attached  to  the  passage. 

NOTE  XIH.,  p.  184. 

Josephus  went  to  Rome  in  his  27th  year,  A.  D.  63,  and  remained 
there  some  time.  Probably  he  witnessed  the  commencement  of  the 
Neronic  persecution  in  A.  D.  64,  after  the  great  fire  which  broke  out 
in  July  of  that  year.  (See  above,  Note  IV.,  page  383.) 

NOTE  XIV.,  p.  184. 

"Ananus  .  .  .  called  the  council  of  judges,  and  bringing  before  them 
James,  the  brother  of  Jesus  who  was  called  Christ,  and  certain  others, 
he  accused  them  of  transgressing  the  laws,  and  delivered  them  up  to  be 
stoned."  (Ant.  Jud.  xx.  9,  §  1.)  According  to  Eusebius,  (Hist.  Eccks. 
ii.  23,)  Josephus  had  the  following  also  in  another  place:  "These 
things  came  upon  the  Jews  as  an  avengement  of  James  the  Just,  who 
was  the  brother  of  Jesus  called  Christ ;  for  the  Jews  slew  him,  although 
he  was  the  most  righteous  of  men." 

I  regard  the  arguments  which  have  been  brought  against  the  famous 
passage  in  our  copies  of  Josephus  concerning  our  Lord's  life  and  teach- 


LECT.  VII.  NOTES.  389 

ing  (Ant.  Jud.  xviii.  3,  §  3)  as  having  completely  established  its  spuri- 
ousness.  (See  Lardner,  Credibility,  vol.  iii.  pp.  537-542  ;  and,  on  the 
other  side,  Home,  Introduction,  vol.  i.  Appendix,  ch.  vii.) 

NOTE  XV.,  p.  184. 

See  Paley's  Evidences,  Part  i.  ch.  7,  p.  71 ;  and  Dr.  Traill's  Essay  on 
the  Personal  Character  of  Josephus,  prefixed  to  his  Translation,  pp.  19,  20. 

NOTE  XVI.,  p.  184. 

The  probable  value  of  these  writings  may  be  gathered  from  the  frag 
ments  of  Celsus,  preserved  by  Origen.  Celsus  quotes  from  all  the  Gos 
pels,  allows  that  they  were  written  by  the  disciples  of  Jesus,  and  con 
firms  all  the  main  facts  of  our  Lord's  life,  even  his  miracles,  (which  he 
ascribes  to  magic ;)  only  denying  his  resurrection,  his  raising  of  others, 
and  his  being  declared  to  be  the  Son  of  God  by  a  voice  from  heaven. 
A  collection  of  the  "testimonies"  which  his  fragments  afford  will  be 
found  in  Lardner.  (Credibility,  &c.,  vol.  iv.  pp.  115,  et  seqq.) 

NOTE  XVII.,  p.  184. 

See  Socrat.  Hist.  Eccles.  i.  9,  p.  32  ;  Justinian,  Nov.  42,  c.  1 ;  Mos- 
heim,  De  Rebus  Christ,  ante  Constantin.  Magn.  p.  561. 

NOTE  XVHL,  p.  185. 
Apolog.  i.  p.  65,  and  p.  70. 

NOTE  XIX.,  p.  185. 

So  at  least  Justin  believed.  (Apol.  i.  p.  70.)  Tertullian  adds,  that 
they  contained  an  account  of  our  Saviour's  resurrection,  of  his  appear 
ances  to  his  disciples,  and  his  ascension  into  heaven  before  their  eyes. 
(Apolog,  c.  21.)  Euscbius  (Hist.  Eccles.  ii.  2)  and  Orosius  (vii.  4) 
bear  nearly  similar  testimony.  As  Dr.  Burton  remarks,  (Eccles.  Hist. 
vol.  i.  p.  34,)  "It  is  almost  impossible  to  suppose  that  the  Fathers 
were  mistaken  in  believing  some  such  document  to  be  preserved  in  the 
archives."  Their  confident  appeals  to  it  show  that  they  believed  its 
substance  not  to  be  unfavorable  to  our  Lord's  character.  "Whether 
33* 


390  NOTES.  LIXT.  VLI. 

they  exactly  knew  its  contents,  or  no,  must  depend  primarily  on  the 
question,  whether  the  documents  of  this  class,  preserved  in  the  State 
Archives,  were  generally  accessible  to  the  public.  They  were  certainly 
not  published ;  and  as  they  were  of  the  nature  of  secret  communica 
tions  to  the  Emperor,  it  may  be  doubted  whether  it  was  easy  to  obtain 
a  sight  of  them.  Still,  perhaps,  the  Christians  may  have  learnt  the 
contents  of  Pilate's  "Acts,"  from  some  of  those  members  of  the  Im 
perial  household  (Phil.  iv.  22)  or  family,  (Burton,  Eccl.  IIist.t  vol.  i.  p. 
367,)  who  became  converts  at  an  early  period. 


NOTE  XX.,  p.  187. 

On  the  extent  of  the  dominions  of  Herod  the  Great,  see  Joseph.  Ant. 
Jud.  xiv.  14-18.  He  died,  as  we  have  already  seen,  (supra,  Lecture 
VI.  Note  I.,)  in  the  year  of  Rome  750.  On  his  death,  there  was  a 
division  of  his  territories  among  his  sons,  Archelaus  receiving  Judaea, 
Samaria,  and  Idumsea  ;  Antipas,  Galilee  and  Perasa ;  Philip,  Trach- 
onitis  and  the  adjoining  countries.  (Joseph.  De  Bell.  Jud.  i.  33,  §  8, 
and  ii.  6,  §  3.)  Ten  years  later  (A.  D.  8)  Archeiaus  was  removed,  and 
his  dominions  annexed  to  the  Roman  Empire,  being  placed  under  a 
Procurator,  (Coponius,)  who  was  subordinate  to  the  President  of  Syria, 
(Joseph.  Ant.  Jud.  xviii.  1,  §  1,)  while  Philip  and  Antipas  continued  to 
rule  their  principalities.  Thirty-three  years  after,  (A.  D.  41,)  Herod 
Agrippa,  by  the  favor  of  Claudius,  reunited  the  several  provinces 
of  Palestine  under  his  own  government,  and  reigned  over  the  whole 
territory  which  had  formed  the  kingdom  of  Herod  the  Great.  (Ibid. 
xix.  5,  §  1.)  At  his  death,  A.  D.  44,  the  Roman  authority  was  estab 
lished  over  the  whole  country,  which  was  administered  by  a  Procura 
tor  holding  under  the  President  of  Syria.  To  the  younger  Agrippa, 
however,  king  of  Chalcis,  a  power  was  presently  intrusted  (A.  D.  48) 
of  managing  the  sacred  treasury  at  Jerusalem,  superintending  the  tem 
ple,  and  appointing  the  Jewish  High  Priests.  (Ibid.  xx.  1.) 


NOTE  XXI.,  p.  187. 

Tacitus  sacrifices  accuracy  to  brevity  in  his  sketch  of  these  changes  : 
—  "The  victorious  Augustus  enlarged  the  kingdom  given  by  Antony 
to  Herod.  After  the  death  of  Herod,  one  Simon,  without  waiting  for 


LECT.  VII.  NOTES.  391 

any  action  on  the  part  of  the  Emperor,  assumed  the  royal  title. 
Quintilius  Yarus  took  possession  of  Syria,  and  punished  him  ;  and  the 
children  of  Herod  governed  the  nation  thus  brought  into  subjection, 
dividing  its  territory  into  three  districts.  Under  Tiberius,  they  re 
mained  quiet ;  but  afterwards,  when  they  were  ordered  by  Caius 
Ca?sar  (i.  e.  Caligula)  to  place  his  statue  in  the  temple,  they  preferred 
to  take  up  arms.  The  death  of  the  Emperor  put  a  stop  to  this  revolt. 
Claudius,  after  the  kings  had  either  died  or  been  reduced  to  subjection, 
intrusted  the  government  of  the  province  of  Judaea  to  Roman  knights, 
or  freedmen."  (Hist.  v.  9.) 

Elsewhere,  he  sometimes  falls  into  actual  error,  as  where  he  assigns 
the  death  of  Agrippa,  and  the  reduction  of  Judaea  into  the  form  of  a 
Homan  province,  to  the  9th  of  Claudius,  A.  D.  49.  (Annul,  xi.  23.) 

Dio's  notices  are  very  confused.  He  seems  scarcely  able  to  distin 
guish  one  Herod  from  another.  (Hist.  Rom.  xlix.  p.  405,  E. ;  liii.  p. 
526,  D. ;  Iv.  p.  567,  B.  ;  and  Ix.  p.  670,  B.) 

NOTE  XXn.,  p.  187. 

See  the  last  note.  Tacitus  appears,  in  both  the  passages,  to  place 
the  first  reduction  of  Judaea  into  the  position  of  a  Roman  province 
tinder  Claudius,  upon  the  death  of  Agrippa.  Yet  he  elsewhere  notices 
the  procuratorship  of  Pontius  Pilate,  in  the  reign  of  Tiberius.  (Ann. 
xv.  44,  quoted  in  Note  IV.) 

NOTE  XXIII.,  p.  187. 

Joseph.  Ant.  Jud.  xx.  1,  §  3.  It  has  not  always  been  seen  that  Festus 
referred  (bvidtro)  St.  Paul's  case  to  Agrippa  on  account  of  his  occupy 
ing  this  position.  Dean  Alford,  however,  distinctly  recognizes  this 
feature  of  the  transaction.  (Greek  Testament,  vol.  ii.  p.  252.) 

NOTE  XXIV.,  p.  188. 

It  has  been  questioned  whether  the  Jews  themselves  had  any  right  of 
capital  punishment  at  this  time.  (Lardner,  Credibility,  &c.,  vol.  i.  pp. 
21-48;  Olshausen,  Biblischer  Commentar,  vol.  ii.  p.  501.)  Josephus 
certainly  represents  the  power  as  one  which  the  Romans  reserved  to 
themselves  from  the  first  establishment  of  the  procuratorship.  (De 


392  NOTES.  LECT.  VII. 

Bell.  Jud.  ii.  8,  §  1  ;  compare  Ant.  Jad.  xx.  9,  §  1.)  But,  as  Dean 
Alford  remarks,  the  history  of  Stephen  and  of  the  "  great  persecution," 
(diuyrfs  A'f'yiv,)  soon  after,  seems  to  show  "that  the  Jews  did,  by 
connivance  of,  or  in  the  absence  of  the  Procurator,  administer  summary 
punishments  of  this  kind."  (Greek  Testament,  vol.  ii.  p.  75 ;  compare 
Joseph.  Ant.  Jud.  1.  s.  c.) 

NOTE  XXV.,  p.  188. 

See  Matt.  T.  26  ;  x.  29  ;  xvii.  25  ;  xviii.  28  ;  xxvi.  53  ;  xxvii.  26,  27. 
and  65  :  Mark  vi.  27  ;  &c.  The  terms,  it  will  be  observed,  are  such  as 
either  belong  to  the  military  force,  the  revenue,  or  the  office  of  gov 
ernor.  They  are  such  therefore  as  would  naturally  be  introduced  by  a 
foreign  dominant  power. 

NOTE  XXVI.,  p.  189. 

See  Mark  vi.  7,  and  40  ;  vii.  11  ;  x.  51 ;  xiii.  14 ;  &c.  The  number 
of  instances  might  of  course  be  greatly  increased.  Among  the  most 
noticeable  are  Matt.  v.  18,  (libra  cV  J)  pia  Kipala  ;  >)  v.  22,  (/<a*d;2)  v.  29, 
(yeVwa;3)  vi.  24,  (/^a^wi/asj^  conf.  Luke  xvi.  9,  &c.  ;)  Mark  iii.  17, 
(fioavepyts ; 5)  V.  41,  (raltGa  Kovfjti  ; 6)  vii.  34,  (f<^aQd  ;7)  XI.  9,  (woavvt ; «) 

John  i.  43,  (V^aj.9)  Compare  also  the  thoroughly  Hebrew  character 
of  the  Canticles  in  Luke  i.  and  ii. 

NOTE  XXVIL,  p.  189. 

Joseph.  De  Bell.  Jud.  vii.  8,  §  1  :  "  For  that  time  was  fruitful 
among  the  Jews  in  all  sorts  of  wickedness,  so  that  they  left  no  evil 
deed  undone  ;  nor  was  there  any  new  form  of  wickedness,  which  any 
one  could  invent,  if  he  wished  to  do  so.  Thus  they  were  all  corrupt, 
both  in  their  public  and  their  private  relations  ;  and  they  vied  with 
each  other  who  should  excel  in  impiety  towards  God  and  injustice  to 
men.  The  more  powerful  oppressed  the  common  people,  and  the 
common  people  eagerly  sought  to  destroy  the  more  powerful ;  for  the 
former  class  were  governed  by  the  love  of  power,  and  the  latter  by  the 
desire  to  seize  and  plunder  the  possessions  of  the  wealthy."  Compare 
Ant.  Jud.  xx.  7,  I  8  ;  Bell.  Jud.  v.  13,  §  6  ;  and  10,  §  5. 

l  One  jot,  or  one  tittle.  2  Raca.  3  Gehenna,  (translated  hdl.~) 

*  Mammon.  6  Boanerges.  6  Talitha  cumi. 

i  KphpLatha.  8  Hosanna.  9  Cephas. 


LECT.  VII.  NOTES.  393 

NOTE  XXVIII.,  p.  189. 

Joseph.  Ant.  Jud.  xvii.  9,  §  3 ;  xx.  4,  §  3  ;  Bell.  Jud.  ii.  19,  §  1  ;  &c. 
On  one  occasion  it  appears  that  more  than  two  and  a  half  millions  of 
persons  had  come  up  to  Jerusalem  to  worship.  (Bell.  Jud.  vi.  9,  §  3.) 

NOTE  XXIX.,  p.  189. 

Ant.  Jud.  xv.  7,  §  8  :  "In  Jerusalem  there  were  two  fortresses,  one 
belonging  to  the  city  itself,  and  the  other  to  the  temple.  Whoever  held 
these  had  the  whole  nation  in  their  power ;  for  without  the  command 
of  these,  it  was  not  possible  to  offer  the  sacrifices ;  and  no  Jew  could 
endure  the  thought  that  these  should  fail  to  be  offered  :  they  were  even 
ready  sooner  to  lay  down  their  lives,  than  to  omit  the  religious  sacri 
fices  which  they  were  accustomed  to  offer  to  God." 

NOTE  XXX.,  p.  189. 

Not  only  was  Caligula's  attempt  to  have  his  statue  set  up  in  the  tem 
ple  resisted  with  determination,  (Joseph.  Ant.  Jud.  xviii.  8,)  but  when 
the  younger  Agrippa,  by  raising  the  height  of  his  house,  obtained 
a  view  into  the  temple  courts,  the  greatest  indignation  was  felt, 
(i5f/Kij  f^aJLiiraivov.')  The  Jews  immediately  raised  a  wall  to  shut  out 
his  prospect,  and  when  Festus  commanded  them  to  remove  it,  they  pos 
itively  refused,  declaring  that  they  would  rather  die  than  destroy  any 
portion  of  the  sacred  fabric,  (£$v  yfy  ol%  faopivnv,  KaBaipfOlvros  Ttv&i  pfpovg 
rot  J£POB.)  See  Ant.  Jud.  xx.  8,  §  11  ;  and  on  the  general  subject,  com 
pare  Philo,  De  Legal,  ad  Caium,  pp.  1022,  1023. 

NOTE  XXXI.,  p.  190. 
Ant.  Jud.  xv.  8,  §§  1-4. 

NOTE  XXXII.,  p.  190. 
See  Lardner's  Credibility,  &c.,  book  i.  ch.  9  ;  vol.  i.  pp.  110-121. 

NOTE  XXXIII.,  p.  190. 

Josephus  tells  us,  that  when  Cyrenius  came  to  take  the  census  of 
men's  properties  throughout  Judoca,  a  controversy  arose  among  the 


394  NOTES.  LECT.  VII. 

Jews  on  the  legality  of  submission  to  foreign  taxation.  Judas  of  Gal 
ilee  (see  Acts  v.  37)  maintained  that  it  was  a  surrender  of  the  theo 
cratic  principle ;  while  the  bulk  of  the  chief  men,  including  some 
considerable  number  of  the  Pharisees,  took  the  opposite  view,  and 
persuaded  the  people  to  submit  themselves.  (Ant.  Jud.  xviii.  1,  §  1.) 

NOTE  XXXIV.,  p.  190. 

Ant.  Jud.  xx.  6,  §  1 :  "  Now  there  arose  an  enmity  between  the 
Samaritans  and  the  Jews,  from  the  following  cause :  The  Galileans 
were  accustomed,  in  going  up  to  the  feasts  that  were  held  in  Jerusalem, 
to  pass  through  the  country  of  the  Samaritans.  At  this  time  there  was 
on  the  road  which  they  took  a  village  called  Ginea,  situated  on  the 
boundary  between  Samaria  and  the  great  plain.  When  the  Galileans 
came  to  this  place,  they  were  attacked,  and  many  of  them  killed." 

NOTE  XXXV.,  p.  190. 

Ibid,  xviii.  1,  §§  3  and  4.  Note  especially  the  following:  Of  the 
Pharisees —  "  They  believe  that  souls  have  an  immortal  vigor,  and  that 
beyond  the  grave  there  are  rewards  and  punishments,  according  as 
they  follow  a  virtuous  or  a  vicious  course  of  life  in  this  world."  Of 
the  Sadducees  —  "But  the  doctrine  of  the  Sadducees  is,  that  the  soul 
is  annihilated  together  with  the  body."  Compare  Acts  xxiii.  8. 

NOTE  XXXVI.,  p.  190. 

Ibid.  1.  s.  c.  [The  Pharisees]  "  are  very  influential  with  the  people  ; 
and  whatever  prayers  to  God  or  sacrifices  are  performed,  are  performed 
at  their  dictation.  The  doctrine  [of  the  Sadducees]  is  received  by  but 
few  ;  but  these  are  the  men  who  are  in  the  highest  authority." 

NOTE  XXXVIL,  p.  190. 

Bell.  Jud.,  vi.  5,  §  4.  "  But  that  which  most  of  all  roused  them  to 
undertake  this  war,  was  an  ambiguous  oracle,  .  .  .  found  in  their 
sacred  books,  that  at  that  time  a  man  of  their  country  should  rule 
over  the  whole  earth." 


LECT.  VII.  NOTES.  395 


NOTE  XXXYIIL,  p.  190. 

Sueton.  Vit.  Vespasian. ,  §  4:  "An  ancient  and  settled  opinion  had 
prevailed  throughout  the  whole  East,  that  fate  had  decreed  that  at  that 
time  persons  proceeding  from  Judaea  should  become  masters  of  the 
world.  This  was  foretold,  as  the  event  aftervyards  proved,  of  the 
Roman  Emperor  ;  but  the  Jews  applied  it  to  themselves,  and  this  was 
the  cause  of  their  rebellion."  Compare  Vit.  Octav.,  §  94,  and  Yirg. 
Eclog.t  iv. 

NOTE  XXXIX.,  p.  190. 

Tacit.  Histor.,  v.  13  :  "These  things  [the  prodigies  that  occurred  just 
before  the  capture  of  Jerusalem  by  the  Romans]  were  regarded  by  a 
few  as  alarming  omens  ;  but  the  greater  number  believed  that  it  was 
written  in  the  ancient  books  of  the  priests,  that  at  that  very  time  the 
East,  should  become  very  powerful,  and  that  persons  proceeding  from 
Judaea  should  become  masters  of  the  world." 

NOTE  XL.,  p.  190. 
Leben  Jesu,  §  34  ;  vol.  i.  p.  220,  E.  T. 

NOTE  XLL,  p.  190. 

See  Philo,  DC  Legatione  ad  Caium,  p.  1022,  D.  E.  For  the  portrait 
ure  of  Josephus,  see  above,  Note  XXVII. 

NOTE  XLH.,  p.  191. 

This  passage  is  given  by  Wctsten  (Nov.  Test.  Gr.t  vol.  ii.  p.  563)  and 
Dean  Alford  (Greek  Testament,  vol.  ii.  p.  175)  as  from  Xenophon  De 
Rep.  Atheniens.  I  have  not  succeeded  in  verifying  the  reference. 

NOTE  XLIIL,  p.  191. 
Liv.  xlv.  27,  ad  fin. 

NOTE  XLIV.,  p.  192. 

How  attractive  to  strangers  Athens  was,  even  in  her  decline,  may  be 
seen  from  the  examples  of  Cicero,  Germanicus,  Fausanias,  and  others. 


896  NOTES.  LECT.  VII. 

(See  Conybeare  and  Howson's  Life  of  St.  Paul,  vol.  i.  pp.  398,  399.) 
On  the  greediness  of  the  Athenians  after  novelty,  see  Demosth.  Philipp. 
i.  p.  43,  ("Or  tell  me,  do  you  -wish  to  go  about  asking  each  other  in 
the  market  place,  «  What  is  the  news  ? '  And  can  there  be  any  thing 
newer,  than  that  the  man  of  Macedon,"  &c. ;)  Philipp.  Epist.  pp.  156, 
157  ;  ./Elian.  Var.  Hist.,  v.  13  ;  Schol.  ad  Thucyd.  iii.  38,  &c.  On 
their  religiousness,  compare  Pausan.  i.  24,  §  3,  (the  Athenians  are  more 
zealous  than  others  in  the  worship  of  the  gods  ;)  Xen.  Rep.  Atheniens. 
iii.  §  1,  and  §  8  ;  Joseph.  Contra  Apion.  ii.  11,  (" All  say,  that  the  Athe 
nians  are  the  most  religious  of  the  Greeks  ;  ")  Strab.  v.  3,  §  18  ;  ^Elian. 
Var.  Hist.  v.  17  ;  Philostrat.  Vit.  Apollon.  vi.  3  ;  Dionys.  Hal.  De  Jud. 
Thuc.,  §  40  ;  and  among  later  authors,  see  Mr.  Grote's  History  of  Greece, 
vol.  iii.  pp.  229-232. 

NOTE  XLV.,  p.  192. 

See  the  Life  and  Epistles  of  St.  Paul,  by  Messrs.  Conybeare  and  How- 
son,  vol.  ii.  pp.  66,  et  seqq.  (1.)  The  "  Great  Goddess,  Diana,"  is  found 
to  have  borne  that  title  as  her  usual  title,  both  from  an  inscription, 
(Boeckh,  Corpus  Inscript.,  2963  C,)  and  from  Xenophon,  (Ephes.  i.  p. 
15  :  "I  invoke  our  ancestral  God,  the  great  Diana  of  the  Ephe- 
sians.")  (2.)  The  "Asiarchs"  are  mentioned  on  various  coins  and 
inscriptions.  (3.)  The  "town-clerk"  (ypa/^awj)  of  Ephesus  is  like 
wise  mentioned  in  inscriptions,  (Boeckh,  No.  2963  C,  No.  2966,  and 
No.  2990.)  (4.)  The  curious  word  wwwfoos,  (Acts  xix.  35,)  literally 
"sweeper"  of  the  temple,  is  also  found  in  inscriptions  and  on  coins, 
as  an  epithet  of  the  Ephesian  people,  (Roeckh,  No.  2966.)  The  "  silver 
shrines  of  Diana,"  the  "court-days,"  the  "deputies"  or  "proconsuls" 
(ofOim-aroi)  might  receive  abundant  classical  illustration.  The  temple 
was  the  glory  of  the  ancient  world !  —  enough  still  remains  of  the 
"theatre"  to  give  evidence  of  its  former  greatness. 

NOTE  XL VI.,  p.  192. 

Compare  Luke  xxiii.  2  ;  John  xix.  12-15  ;  Acts  xxv.  12  and  26  ; 
xxvi.  32 ;  2  Tim.  iv.  17  ;  1  Pet.  ii.  13  and  17. 

1  Plin.  xxxv.  21 ;  Strab.  xiv.  1 ;  Phil.  Byz.  De  Sept.  Orb.  Spectaculis. 


LECT.  VII.  NOTES.  397 

NOTE  XL VII.,  p.  192. 

The  Roman  provinces  under  the  empire  were  administered  either  by 
proconsuls,  or  legates,  or  in  a  few  instances  by  procurators.  The  tech 
nical  Greek  name  for  the  proconsul  is  avQunaros,  (Polyb.  xxi.  8,  §  11,) 
as  that  for  the  consul  is  urmrof.  Proconsuls  are  mentioned  by  St.  Luke 
in  Cyprus,  (Acts  xiii.  7,)  at  Ephesus,  (ib.  xix.  38,)  and  at  Corinth,  (ib. 
xviii.  12,  where  the  verb  "to  be  a  proconsul"  expresses  the  office  of 
Gallio.)  In  every  case  the  use  of  the  term  is  historically  correct.  (See 
below,  Notes  CIV.  and  CVIII.)  Other  officers  are  not  so  distinctly 
designated.  Legates  do  not  occur  in  the  history ;  and  the  Greek  pos 
sessing  no  term  correspondent  to  procurator,  such  officers  appear  only 
as  fiyfpdvts,  (governors,)  a  generic  term  applicable  to  proconsuls  also. 
(See  Luke  ii.  2  ;  iii.  1 ;  Matt,  xxvii.  2  ;  Acts  xxiii.  24  ;  xxvi.  30,  &c.) 

The  anxiety  to  avoid  tumults  may  be  observed  in  the  conduct  of 
Pilate,  (Matt,  xxvii.  24  ;)  of  the  authorities  at  Ephesus,  (Acts  xix. 
35-41  ;)  and  of  Lysias,  (Acts  xxi.  32  ;  xxii.  24.)  The  governors  were 
liable  to  recall  at  any  moment,  and  knew  that  they  would  probably  be 
superseded,  if  they  allowed  troubles  to  break  out. 

NOTE  XL VIII.,  p.  192. 

See  especially  Gallio's  words,  (Acts  xviii.  14-16.)  Compare  Acts 
xxiii.  29  ;  and  xxviii.  30,  31.  On  the  general  tolerance  of  the  Romans, 
see  Lardner's  Credibility,  vol.  i.  p.  95,  et  seqq. 

NOTE  XLIX.,  p.  192. 

In  a  Rescript  of  Severus  and  Caracalla,  (Digest,  xlviii.  17,  1,)  we 
read,  "  We  have  also  this  law,  that  the  absent  must  not  be  condemned ; 
for  indeed  the  rule  of  justice  does  not  allow  any  one  to  be  condemned 
without  having  his  cause  heard."  Compare  Dionys.  Hal.  vii.  53,  p. 
441.  The  odium  incurred  by  Cicero  for  proceeding  without  formal 
trial  against  the  Catiline  conspirators,  (Ep.  ad  FamiL,  v.  2,  p.  60,  b,)  is 
an  indication  of  the  value  attached  to  the  principle  in  question. 

NOTE  L.,  p.  192. 

Acts  xxii.  28.  Dio  says  of  Antony,  "  He  collected  money  from 
private  individuals,  selling  to  some  the  right  of  citizenship,  and  to 

34 


398  NOTES.  LECT.  VII. 

others  exemption  from  taxes."  And  of  Claudius,  "  Since  the  Romans 
were,  so  to  speak,  in  all  things  preferred  to  foreigners,  many  addressed 
their  petitions  directly  to  him,  [for  the  privilege  of  citizenship,]  and 
others  purchased  it  ef  Messalina,  and  of  the  Emperor's  favorites,"  (Ix. 
17,  p.  676,  C.)  Citizenship  by  birth  on  the  part  of  a  foreigner  might 
arise  (1.)  from  his  being  a  native  of  some  colony  or  municipium  ;  (2.) 
from  a  grant  of  citizenship,  on  account  of  service  rendered,  to  his 
father,  or  a  more  remote  ancestor  ;  or  (3.)  from  his  father,  or  a  more 
remote  ancestor,  having  purchased  his  freedom.  Dio  speaks,  a  little 
before  the  passage  last  quoted,  of  many  Lycians  having  been  deprived 
of  their  Roman  citizenship  by  Claudius.  That  Jews  were  often  Roman 
citizens  appears  from  Josephus.  {Ant.  Jud.  xiv.  10,  §§  13,  14,  16,  &c.) 

NOTE  LL,  p.  192. 

Acts  xxv.  11.  Suetonius  says  of  Augustus,  "The  appeals  of  liti 
gants  belonging  to  the  city  he  referred  every  year  to  the  praetor  ;  but 
those  of  persons  belonging  to  the  provinces,  to  men  of  consular  dignity, 
of  whom  he  had  appointed  a  separate  one  over  the  aifairs  of  each  pro 
vince."  (Vit,  Octav.  c.  33.)  Pliny  probably  refers  to  cases  where  the 
right  of  appeal  had  been  claimed,  when  he  says  of  the  Bithynian  Chris 
tians,  «« There  were  others  under  the  same  infatuation ;  but  as  they 
were  Roman  citizens,  I  directed  them  to  be  sent  to  the  capital."  (Ep. 
ad  Traj.  x.  97.) 

NOTE  LIL,  p.  192. 

The  humane  treatment  of  prisoners  is  an  occasional  feature  of  the 
Roman  system.  (See  Acts  xxiv.  23,  and  xxviii.  16  and  30.)  Lardner 
(Credibility,  vol.  i.  p.  128)  observes  that  the  treatment  of  Herod  Agrip- 
pa  I.  closely  illustrates  that  of  St.  Paul.  Soon  after  his  first  imprison 
ment,  by  the  influence  of  Antonia,  his  friends  were  allowed  free  access 
to  him,  and  permitted  to  bring  him  food  and  other  comforts.  (Joseph. 
Ant.  Jud.  xviii.  6,  §  7.)  On  the  death  of  Tiberius,  whom  he  had 
offended,  Caligula  enlarged  him  further,  permitting  him  to  return  and 
live  in  his  oicn  house,  where  he  was  still  guarded,  but  less  strictly  than 
before.  (Ibid.  §  10  :  "  He  commanded  that  Agrippa  should  be  removed 
from  the  camp  to  the  house  in  which  he  had  lived  before  he  was  impris 
oned  ;  so  that  now  he  was  free  from  anxiety  with  regard  to  his  situa 
tion  ;  for  it  was,  to  be  sure,  one  of  custody  and  surveillance,  but  with 


LECT.  VII.  NOTES.  399 

much  liberty  as  to  his  mode  of  life."  Compare  the  order  of  Felix  with 
regard  to  St.  Paul —  "commanding  a  centurion  to  keep  him,  and  to  let 
him  have  liberty,"  &c.  Acts  xxiv.  23.) 

NOTE  LIU.,  p.  192. 

On  one  occasion  we  find  St.  Paul  "bound  with  two  chains,"  (Acts 
xxi.  33  ;)  but  commonly  we  hear  of  his  "chain"  (<Uu<r<j)  in  the  singu 
lar.  (Acts  xxviii.  20;  Ephes.  vi.  20;  2  Tim.  i.  16.)  Now,  it  is  abun 
dantly  apparent  from  Seneca  (De  Tranquitt.  10,  Epist.  5)  and  other 
writers,  (Tacit.  Ann.  iv.  28,  &c.,)  that  prisoners  were  commonly  fas 
tened  by  a  chain  passed  from  their  right  wrist  to  the  left  wrist  of  their 
keeper.  Where  greater  security  was  desired,  a  prisoner  had  two  keep 
ers,  and  a  second  chain  was  passed  from  his  left  wrist  to  the  second 
keeper's  right.  The  keeper  to  whom  a  prisoner  was  bound  was  called 
co-bondman. 

NOTE  LIV.,  p.  192. 

Matt,  xxvii.  27 ;  Acts  xx.  6 ;  xxiv.  23  ;  xxviii.  1,  16.  The  military 
custody  (custodia  militaris)  of  the  Romans  is  well  known  to  writers  on 
antiquities.  Ulpian  says,  that  when  a  person  was  arrested,  it  was  the 
business  of  the  proconsul  to  determine  "whether  the  person  should  be 
committed  to  prison,  or  delivered  to  the  custody  of  a  soldier,  or  placed 
in  the  care  of  his  sureties,  or,  finally,  left  to  take  care  of  himself."  (Di 
gest,  xlviii.  Tit.  3.  De  Cttstod.  et  Exhib.  Reor.  §  1.)  Examples  of  the 
military  custody  will  be  found  in  Tacitus,  (Ann.  iii.  22  ;)  Josephus, 
(Ant.  Jud.  xviii.  6,  §  7  ;)  Ignatius,  (Ep.  ad  Roman,  v.  p.  370 ;)  Martyr. 
Ignat.,  (ii.  p.  450 ;  v.  p.  544,)  &c. 

NOTE  LV.,  p.  192. 

Examining  free  persons  by  scourging  (Acts  xxii.  24)  or  other  torture, 
was  against  the  spirit,  and  indeed  against  the  letter,  of  the  Roman  law. 
"The  Divine  Augustus  made  a  law  that  the  torture  should  not  be 
applied."  (Digest.  48.  Tit.  18,  §  1.)  But  arbitrary  power  often  broke 
this  law,  both  at  Rome  and  in  the  provinces.  Suetonius  says  of  Au 
gustus,  "  And  he  took  Quintus  Gallius,  the  praetor,  from  the  tribunal, 
and  put  him  to  the  torture,  as  if  he  had  been  a  slave."  (Vit.  Octav. 
§  27.)  Tacitus  of  Nero,  "Thinking  that  the  body  of  a  woman  would 


400  NOTES.  LECT.  VII. 

not  be  able  to  endure  the  pain,  he  ordered  Epicharis  to  be  scourged." 
(Annal.  xv.  57.)     This  examination  was  in" part  by  scourging. 

NOTE  LVL,  p.  192. 

See  Livy  xxxiii.  36,  ("  After  they  had  been  scourged,  he  fastened 
them  to  crosses ; ")  Val.  Max.  i.  7,  §  4 ;  Joseph.  Bell.  Jud.  ii.  14,  §  9, 
("  Florus  chastised  many  with  scourges,  and  afterwards  crucified  them. 
He  had  the  boldness  to  scourge  men  of  equestrian  rank  before  the  judg 
ment-seat,  and  then  to  nail  them  to  the  cross ;  ")  &c.  These  last  notices 
show  the  practice  on  the  part  of  the  Roman  governors  of  Palestine. 

NOTE  LVIL,  p.  192. 

The  crucifixion  of  the  Orientals  has  more  commonly  been  impaling, 
than  nailing  to  a  cross.  (See  Ctesias,  ap.  Phot.  Bibl.  Cod.  LXXIL,  p. 
122 ;  Casuabon.  Exerc.  Antibaron.  xvi.  77.)  The  Romans  fastened  the 
body  to  the  cross  either  by  cords  or  nails.  (See  Smith's  Dictioiiary  of 
Gr.  and  Rom.  Antiq.  p.  370.)  It  is  evident  from  Josephus,  that  nailing 
was  the  common  practice  in  Palestine.  (See  the  last  note,'  and  com 
pare  Bell.  Jud.  vi. :  "The  soldiers,  through  rage  and  hatred,  fastened 
their  captives  to  crosses,  some  in  one  manner,  and  some  in  another,  in 
mockery ;  and  on  account  of  the  great  number,  there  was  not  room 
enough  for  the  crosses,  nor  crosses  enough  for  the  bodies.")  St.  Au 
gustine  speaks  as  if  nailing  was  the  ordinary  Roman  method.  (Tractat. 
xxxvi.  in  Johann.  Opera,  vol.  ix.  p.  278  :  "When  men  are  tormented 
with  very  severe  pains,  they  call  them  ex-eructating,  a  term  derived 
from  the  cross,  (a  cruce.)  For  they  who  are  crucified,  being  sus 
pended  on  the  wood,  and  being  fastened  to  it  with  nails,  undergo  a 
lingering  death.") 

NOTE  LYIIL,  p.  192. 

Plutarch,  de  Sera  Numinis  Vindicta,  ii.  p.  554,  A.:  "And  each  of  the 
malefactors  sentenced  to  capital  punishment,  carries  his  own  cross." 
Compare  Artemidor.  Oneirocrit.  ii.  61 :  "The  cross  is  also  a  symbol  of 
death,  and  he  that  is  about  to  be  nailed  to  it,  first  carries  it  along." 


LECT.  VII.  NOTES.  401 


NOTE  LIX.,  p.  192. 

The  practice  of  attaching  a  small  board  or  placard  to  criminals,  with 
a  notification  of  the  nature  of  their  offence,  is  mentioned  by  several 
writers,  and  there  are  many  allusions  to  it  in  the  poets.  The  technical 
name  of  this  placard  was  in  Latin  "  titulus."  (Compare  the  title  of 
John  xix.  19.)  See  Sueton.  Vit.  Calig.  §  34:  "At  a  public  feast  in 
Rome,  when  a  slave  had  stolen  a  piece  of  silver  from  one  of  the  couches, 
he  delivered  him  at  once  to  the  executioner,  and  his  hands  being  cut 
off,  and  hanging  upon  his  breast,  suspended  from  his  neck,  he  was  led 
about  through  the  throng  of  guests  at  the  feast,  carrying  before  him  a 
title  winch  declared  the  cause  of  his  punishment."  Vit.  Domitian.  §  10  : 
"He  dragged  from  the  theatre  a  master  of  a  family,  because  he  had 
said  that  a  Thracian  was  equal  to  a  gladiator,  but  unequal  to  a  master 
of  the  shows,  and  cast  him  to  the  dogs  in  the  arenas  with  this  title  :  '  a 
Parmularian  l  who  has  spoken  impiously.' "  Dio  Cass.  liv.  p.  523  .- 
"When  the  father  of  Csepio  therefore  released  one  of  the  slaves  who 
had  been  banished  along  with  his  son,  because  he  had  tried  to  defend 
the  deceased,  but  led  the  other  one,  who  had  betrayed  him,  through 
the  midst  of  the  market  place,  icith  a  writing  declaring  the  cause  of  his 
death,  and  afterwards  crucified  him,  he  was  not  displeased."  Ovid. 
Fasti,  vi.  190,  191 :  "  He  lived  that  he  might  die  convicted  of  a  crime 
against  the  state.  Advanced  age  conferred  upon  him  this  title."  Com 
pare  Trist.  iii.  1,  47.  We  have  no  classical  proof  that  the  "titulus" 
was  ordinarily  affixed  to  the  cross,  unless  we  may  view  as  such  the 
statement  of  Hesychius — "A  board,  a  door,  a  plastered  tablet,  on 
which  accusations  against  malefactors  were  written  at  Athens.  It  was 
also  placed  upon  the  cross." 

NOTE  LX.,  p.  192, 

Seneca  speaks  of  the  "  centurion  who  had  the  charge  of  inflicting 
punishment"  as  an  ordinary  thing.  (De  Ira,  c.  16,  p.  34.)  Petronius 
Arbiter  says,  "A  soldier  watched  the  crosses,  lest  some  one  should 
carry  off  the  bodies  for  burial."  {Satyr,  c.  111.) 

i  This  word  means,  "an  adherent  of  the  party  of  the  Thracians,  who  were  armed 
with  a  small  round  shield,  called  '  parma.' " 

34* 


402  NOTES.  LECT.  VII. 

NOTE  LXL,  p.  192. 

So  Alford  (vol.  i.,  p.  647)  —  "The  garments  of  the  executed  were  by 
law  the  perquisites  of  the  soldiers  on  duty."  Cf.  Digest,  xlviii.  Tit. 
20,  §  6. 

NOTE  LXn.,  p.  193. 

Ulpian  says,  "The  bodies  of  those  who  suffer  capital  punishment 
are  not  to  be  refused  to  their  friends.  And  the  Divine  Augustus 
writes,  in  the  tenth  book  of  his  life,  that  he  also  observed  this  rule. 
But  at  this  day,  the  bodies  of  the  persons  in  question  are  not  buried, 
unless  permission  has  first  been  sought  and  granted.  And  sometimes 
it  is  not  granted,  especially  in  the  case  of  those  condemned  for  trea 
son."  (Digest,  xlviii.  Tit.  24.  De  Cadav.  Punit.  §  1.)  And  again  — 
"  The  bodies  of  those  who  suffer  punishment  are  to  be  given  to  any  re 
questing  them  for  interment."  (Ibid.  §  3.)  So  Diocletian  and  Maximian 
declare,  "  We  do  not  forbid  that  those  who  are  guilty  of  crimes,  after 
they  have  been  duly  punished,  should  be  consigned  to  burial."  The 
practice  of  the  Jews  to  take  bodies  down  from  the  cross  and  bury  them 
on  the  day  of  their  crucifixion,  is  witnessed  to  by  Josephus  —  "  He  pro 
ceeded  to  such  a  degree  of  impiety,  as  to  cast  out  bodies  unburied, 
although  the  Jews  took  so  much  care  in  regard  to  burials,  that  they  even 
took  down  and  buried,  before  the  sun  went  cloicn,  those  who  had  been 
condemned  and  crucified."  (De  Bell.  Jud.  iv.  5,  §  2.) 

NOTE  LXIIL,  p.  193. 

Among  minute  points  of  accordance  may  be  especially  noticed  the 
following:  —  1.  The  geographical  accuracy,  (a)  Compare  the  divisions 
of  Asia  Minor  mentioned  in  the  Acts  with  those  in  Pliny.  Phrygia, 
Galatia,  Lycaonia,  Cilicia,  Pamphylia,  Pisidia,  Asia,  Mysia,  Bithyiiia, 
are  all  recognized  as  existing  provinces  by  the  Roman  geographer,  writ 
ing  probably  within  a  few  years  of  St.  Luke.  (H.  N.  v.  27,  et  seqq.) 
(i)  The  division  of  European  Greece  into  the  two  provinces  of  Mace 
donia  and  Achaia,  (Acts  xix.  21,  &c.,)  accords  exactly  with  the  arrange 
ment  of  Augustus  noticed  in  Strabo,  (xvii.  ad  fin.)  (c)  The  various 
tracts  in  or  about  Palestine  belong  exactly  to  the  geography  of  the 
time,  and  of  no  other,  Judrca,  Samaria,  Galilee,  Trachonitis,  Iturrca, 


LECT.  VII.  NOTES.  403 

Abilene,  Decapolis,  are  recognized  as  geographically  distinct  at  this 
period  by  the  Jewish  and  classical  writers.  (See  Plin.  H.  N.  v.  14,  18, 
23  ;  Strab.  xvi.  2,  §§  10,  34  ;  Joseph.  Ant.  Jud.  xix.  5,  §  1,  &c.) 
(d)  The  routes  mentioned  are  such  as  were  in  use  at  the  time.  The 
"  ship  of  Alexandria,"  which,  conveying  St.  Paul  to  Rome,  lands  him 
at  Puteoli,  follows  the  ordinary  course  of  the  Alexandrian  corn-ships, 
as  mentioned  by  Strabo,  (xvii.  1,  §  7,)  Philo,  (In  Place,  pp.  968,  969,) 
and  Seneca,  (Epist.  77,)  and  touches  at  customary  harbors.  (See 
Sueton.  Vit.  Tit.  §  25,)  Paul's  journey  from  Troas  by  Neapolis  to 
Philippi  presents  an  exact  parallel  to  that  of  Ignatius,  sixty  years  later, 
(Martyr.  Ignat.  c.  5.)  His  passage  through  Amphipolis  and  Apollonia 
on  his  road  from  Philippi  to  Thessalonica,  is  in  accordance  with  the 
Itinerary  of  Antonine,  which  places  those  towns  on  the  route  between 
the  two  cities,  (p.  22.)  (e)  The  mention  of  Philippi  as  the  first  city  of 
Macedonia  to  one  approaching  from  the  east,  ("  the  chief  city  of  that  part 
of  Macedonia,"  Acts  xvi.  12,)  is  correct,  since  there  was  no  other  be 
tween  it  and  Neapolis.  The  statement,  that  it  was  "  a  colony,*'  is  also 
true,  (Dio  Cass.  li.  4,  p.  445,  D  ;  Plin.  H.  N.  iv.  11  ;  Strab.  vii.  Fr.  41.) 
2.  The  minute  political  knowledge,  (a)  We  have  already  seen  the 
intimate  knowledge  exhibited  of  the  state  of  Ephesus,  with  its  pro 
consul,  town-clerk,  Asiarchs,  &c.  A  similar  exactitude  appears  in  the 
designation  of  the  chief  magistrates  of  Thessalonica  as  "  the  rulers  of  the 
city,"  (Acts  xvii.  6,)  their  proper  and  peculiar  appellation.  (Boeckh, 
Corp.  Inscr.  No.  1967.)  (5)  So  too  the  Roman  governors  of  Corinth 
and  Cyprus  are  given  their  correct  titles.  (See  Notes  CIV.  and  CVIII.) 
(c)  Publius,  the  Roman  governor  of  Malta,  has  again  his  proper  tech 
nical  designation,  ("  the  chief  man  of  the  island,"  Actsxxviii.  7,)  as  ap 
pears  from  inscriptions  commemorating  the  chief  of  the  Melitans,  or 
««  Melitensium  primus."  !  (See  Alford,  ii.  p.  282.)  (d)  The  delivery 
of  the  prisoners  to  the  "  captain  of  the  (Proctor ian)  guard"  at  Rome, 
is  in  strict  accordance  with  the  practice  of  the  time.  (Trajan,  ap.  Plin. 
Ep.  x.  65  :  "  He  ought  to  be  sent  bound  to  the  prsefects  of  my 
Praetorian  guard."  Compare  Philostrat  vit.  Sophist,  ii.  32,) 

Among  additions  to  our  classical  knowledge,  for  which  we  are  in 
debted  to  Scripture,  it  may  suffice  to  mention,  1.  The  existence  of  an 
Italian  cohort  (the  Italian  band)  as  early  as  the  reign  of  Tiberius,  (Acts 

1  The  Latin  and  the  Greek  are  precisely  equivalent. 


404  NOTES.  LECT.  VII. 


x.  1.)  2.  The  application  of  the  term  Zfpaarti  (Augustan)  to  another 
cohort,  a  little  later,  (Acts  xxviii.  1.)  3.  The  existence  of  an  Altar  at 
Athens  with  the  inscription,  "  To  the  unknown  God,"  (Acts  xvii.  23,) 
which  is  not  to  be  confounded  with  the  well-known  inscriptions  to  un 
known  gods.  4.  The  use  of  the  title  ffrparr/yo?  (Praetors)  by  the  Duum 
viri,  or  chief  magistrates  of  Philippi,  (Acts  xvi.  20.)  We  know  from 
Cicero,  (De  Leg.  Agrar.  34,)  that  the  title  was  sometimes  assumed  in 
such  cases,  but  we  have  no  other  proof  that  it  was  in  use  at  Philippi. 

NOTE  LXTV.,  p.  193. 
Lardner,  Credibility,  &c.,  vol.  i.  p.  60. 

NOTE  LXV.,  p.  193. 

See  Acts  xiii.  5,  14  ;  xiv.  1  ;  xvi.  3,  13  ;  xvii.  1,  10,  17  ;  xviii.  4  ; 
xix.  8,  &c. 

NOTE  LXVL,  p.  194. 

"  Now,  in  regard  to  the  holy  city,  there  are  somethings  which  I  ought 
to  say.  It  is,  as  I  have  said,  the  place  of  my  nativity  ;  and  it  is  the 
metropolis,  not  of  the  single  country  of  Judaea,  but  of  a  great  many 
countries,  by  means  of  the  colonies  which  it  has  sent  out  from  time  to 
time,  —  some  to  the  neighboring  countries  of  Egypt,  Phocnice,  Syria 
proper,  and  that  part  called  Coele-  Syria  ;  —  and  some  planted  in  the 
more  distant  regions  of  Pamphylia,  Cilicia,  and  many  parts  of  Asia,  as 
far  as  Bithynia  and  the  recesses  of  Pontus  ;  in  like  manner  also  in 
Europe,  in  Thessaly,  Bceotia,  Macedonia,  ^Etolia,  Attica,  Argos,  Cor 
inth,  and  many  of  the  best  parts  of  the  Peloponnesus  ;  and  not  only 
are  the  continental  countries  full  of  Jewish  colonies,  but  also  the  most 
famous  islands,  as  Eubo?a,  Cyprus,  and  Crete  ;  not  to  speak  of  those 
beyond  the  Euphrates.  For  excepting  a  small  part  of  Babylon,  and  of 
the  other  satrapies,  all  the  places  which  have  a  fertile  territory  around 
them  have  Jewish  inhabitants  ;  so  that  if  my  country  shall  receive  this 
favor  from  thee,  not  one  city  only,  but  ten  thousand  others,  situated  in 
every  region  of  the  habitable  world,  will  be  benefited  ;  those  in  Europe, 
and  Asia,  and  Africa  ;  those  on  the  continents  and  in  the  islands,  on 
the  sea  shore  and  in  the  interior.  (Philo  Jud.  Legat.  ad  Caium,  pp. 
1031,  1032.) 


LECT.  VII.  NOTES.  405 


NOTE  LXVIE.,  p.  194. 

"  For  no  single  country  contains  the  Jews,  but  they  are  exceedingly 
numerous  ;  on  which  account  they  are  distributed  through  nearly  all 
the  most  nourishing  countries  of  Europe  and  Asia,  both  insular  and 
continental  ;  and  they  all  regard  the  sacred  city  as  their  metropolis." 
(Ibid.  In  Place,  p.  971,  E.) 

NOTE  LXVIEL,  p.  194. 

Joseph.  Ant.  Jud.  xx.  2  ;  De  Bell.  Jud.  vii.  3,  §  3  ;  Contr.  Apion.  ii. 
36,  &c. 

NOTE  LXIX.,  p.  194. 

Philo  frequently  mentions  the  synagogues  under  the  name  of  "places 
of  prayer."  (In  Place,  p.  972,  A.  B.  E.  ;  Legal,  in  Caium,  p.  1014,  &c.) 
Their  position  by  the  sea-side,  or  by  a  river-side,  is  indicated,  among 
other  places,  in  the  Decree  of  the  Halicarnassians  reported  by  Josephus, 
(Ant.  Jud.  xiv.  10,  §  23,)  where  the  Jews  are  allowed  to  offer  prayers 
by  the  sea-  side,  according  to  their  national  custom.  See  also  Philo, 
Legat.  in  Caium,  p.  982,  D.  ;  Tertull.  ad  Nat.  i.  13  ;  De  Jejun.  c.  1G  ; 
and  Juv.  Sat.  iii.  13. 

NOTE  LXX.,  p.  194. 

Lightfoot,  Hebraic,  et  Talmudic.  Exercitat.,  not.  in  Act.  Apost.  vi.  8  ; 
Works,  vol.  ii.  p.  664. 

NOTE  LXXL,  p.  194. 

See  Legat.  in  Caium,  (p.  1014,  C.  D.,)  where  Philo  speaks  of  Transti- 
berine  Home  as  Karroo//  fj^v  *aJ  olmvptvriv  irpbs  'lou^a/uj/,1  and  then  adds, 
'Pw/iatoi  (5*  fiaav  ol  TrAftouj 


NOTE  LXXIL,  p.  194. 

Annal.  ii.  85  :  "  The  question  of  banishing  the  sacred  rites  of  the 
Egyptians  and  of  the  Jews  was  also  determined  ;  a  decree  was  made  by 

i  Occupied  and  inhabited  by  Jews. 

a  But  the  greater  part  of  them  were  Roman  freedmen. 


406  NOTES.  LECT.  VII. 

the  fathers,  that  four  thousand  of  the  class  offreedmen,  who  were  tainted 
•with  that  superstition  —  those  being  selected  who  were  of  suitable  age 
—  should  be  transported  to  the  island  of  Sardinia." 

NOTE  LXXHL,  p.  195. 

For  the  tumultuous  spirit  of  the  foreign  Jews,  see  Sueton.  vit.  Claud. 
p.  25 ;  Dio  Cassius,  Ix.  6 ;  Joseph.  Ant.  Jud.  xviii.  8,  §  1 ;  9,  §  9  ;  xx. 
1,  §  1;  &c. 

NOTE  LXXIV.,  p.  196. 

Annal.  xv.  44.  Tiberius  reigned  (as  sole  emperor)  23  years.  (Suet. 
vit.  Tib.  §  73.)  His  principatus,  however,  may  date  from  three  years 
earlier,  when  he  was  associated  by  Augustus.  (Tacit.  Ann.  i.  3  ;  Suet. 
vit.  Tib.  §  21.) 

NOTE  LXXV.,  p.  196. 

If  our  Lord  was  born  in  the  year  of  Rome  747,  (see  above,  Lecture 
VI.,  Note  I.)  he  would  have  been  three  years  old  at  Herod's  death  ; 
and  32  years  old  when  he  commenced  his  ministry,  in  the  fifteenth  year 
from  the  associated  principate  of  Tiberius.  This  is  not  incompatible 
with  St.  Luke's  declaration,  that  he  was  about  thirty  years  of  age  (d/o-a 
ITWV  rptoKovTa')  when  he  began  to  preach  ;  for  that  expression  admits  of 
some  latitude.  (See  Alford's  Greek  Testament,  vol.  i.  pp.  323  and  327.) 

NOTE  LXXVL,  p.  196. 
Joseph.  Ant.  Jud.  xiv.  7,  §  3 ;  xvii.  8,  §  1  ;  Nic.  Damasc.  Fr.  5. 

NOTE  LXXVH.,  p.  196. 

Joseph.  Ant.  Jud.  xv.  6,  §  7 ;  Tacit.  Hist.  v.  9.  -"The  victorious 
Augustus  enlarged  the  kingdom  given  to  Herod  by  Antony." 

NOTE  LXXVIII.,  p.  196. 

See  Lardncr's  Credibility,  vol.  i.  pp.  148-151 ;  and  compare  Joseph. 
De  Bell.  Jud.  i.  27,  §  1  ;  29,  §  2  ;  33,  §  8  ;  Appian.  De  Bell.  Civ.  v.  p. 
1135. 


LECT.  VH.  NOTES.  407 

NOTE  LXXIX.,  p.  196. 

The  cruelties,  deceptions,  and  suspicions  of  Herod  the  Great,  fill 
many  chapters  in  Josephus.  (Ant.  Jud.  xv.  1,  3,  6,  7,  &c. ;  xvi.  i,  8, 
10  ;  xvii.  3,  6,  7,  &c.)  His  character  is  thus  summed  up  by  that  writer  : 
—  "  He  was  a  man  cruel  to  all  alike,  yielding  to  the  impulses  of  pas 
sion,  but  regardless  of  the  claims  of  justice ;  and  yet  no  one  was  ever 
favored  with  a  more  propitious  fortune."  (Ant.  Jud.  xvii.  8,  $  1.)  His 
arrest  of  the  chief  men  throughout  his  dominion,  and  design  that  on 
his  own  demise  they  should  all  be  executed,  (ibid.  6,  §  5 ;  Bell.  Jud.  i. 
33,  $6,)  shows  a  bloodier  temper  than  even  the  massacre  of  the  Inno 
cents. 

NOTE  LXXX.,  p.  197. 
Strauss,  Leben  Jesu,  §  34  ;  vol.  i.  p.  222,  E.  T. 

NOTE  LXXXL,  p.  197. 

Strauss  grants  the  massacre  to  be  "  not  inconsistent  with  the  disposi 
tion  of  the  aged  tyrant  to  the  extent  that  Schleiermacher  supposed," 
(Leben  Jesu,  1.  s.  c.  p.  228,  E.  T.,)  but  objects,  that  "  neither  Josephus, 
who  is  very  minute  in  his  account  of  Herod,  nor  the  rabbins,  who 
were  assiduous  in  blackening  his  memory,  give  the  slightest  hint  of  this 
decree."  (1.  s.  c.)  He  omits  to  observe,  that  they  could  scarcely  nar 
rate  the  circumstance  without  some  mention  of  its  reason the  birth 

of  the  supposed  Messiah  —  a  subject  oil  which  their  prejudices  neces 
sarily  kept  them  silent. 

NOTE  LXXXIL,  p.  197. 

Macrob,  Saturnal.  ii.  4  :  "  When  Augustus  had  heard,  that  among  the 
children  under  two  years  of  age  ichom  Herod,  the  king  of  the  Jcivs,  had 
commanded  to  be  slain  in  Syria,  there  was  also  one  of  the  king's  own 
sons,  he  said  it  was  better  to  be  the  sow,1  than  the  son  of  Herod." 
Strauss  contends,  that  "  the  passage  loses  all  credit  by  confounding  the 
execution  of  Antipater,  who  had  gray  hairs,  with  the  murder  of  the 

1  There  is  in  the  original  a  play  upon  the  similarity  of  the  Greek  words  for  "  hoji " 
and  "son,"  which  is  partly,  at  least,  preserved  in  translation  by  taking  license  to  substi 
tute  the  feminine  for  the  masculine  in  this  word. 


408  NOTES.  LECT.  VII. 

infants,  renowned  among  the  Christians  ;  "  but  Macrobius  says  nothing 
of  Antipater,  and  evidently  does  not  refer  to  any  of  the  known  sons  of 
Herod.  He  believes  that  among  the  children  massacred  was  an  infant 
son  of  the  Jewish  king.  It  is  impossible  to  say  whether  he  was  right 
or  wrong  in  this  belief.  It  may  have  simply  originated  in  the  fact  that 
a  jealousy  of  a  royal  infant  was  known  to  have  been  the  motive  for  the 
massacre.  (See  Olshausen,  Biblsch.  Comment,  vol.  i.  p.  72,  note  ;  p.  67, 
E.  T.) 

NOTE  LXXXHI.,  p.  197. 

Josephus  says,  "  When  Caesar  had  heard  these  things  he  dissolved  the 
assembly ;  and  a  few  days  afterwards  he  appointed  Archelaus,  not  in 
deed  king,  but  ethnarch  of  half  the  country  which  had  been  subject  to 
Herod,  .  .  .  and  the  other  half  he  divided,  and  gave  it  to  two  other 
sons  of  Herod,  Philip  and  Antipas ;  ...  to  the  latter  of  whom  he 
made  Persea  and  Galilee  subject,  .  .  .  while  Batanaea  with  Trachonitis, 
and  Auranitis  with  a  certain  part  of  what  is  called  the  House  of  Zeno- 
dorus,  were  subjected  to  Philip  ;  but  the  parts  subject  to  Archelaus 
were  Idumea  and  Judaea  and  Samaria."  (Antiq.  Jud.  xvii.  11,  §  4.) 
Compare  the  brief  notice  of  Tacitus :  "  The  country  which  had  been 
subdued,  was  governed,  in  three  divisions,  by  the  sons  of  Herod." 
(Hist.  v.  9.) 

NOTE  LXXXIV.,  p.  197. 

Strauss  says,  "  Luke  determines  the  date  of  John's  appearance  by 
various  synchronisms,  placing  it  in  the  time  of  Pilate's  government  in 
Judaea  ;  in  the  sovereignty  of  Herod,  (Antipas ;)  of  Philip  and  of  Ly- 
sanias  over  the  other  divisions  of  Palestine  ;  in  the  high-priesthood  of 
Annas  and  Caiaphas  ;  and  moreover  precisely  in  the  loth  year  of  the 
reign  of  Tiberius,  which,  reckoning  from  the  death  of  Augustus,  cor 
responds  with  the  year  28-29  of  our  era.  With  this  last  and  closest 
demarcation  of  time  all  the  foregoing  less  precise  ones  agree.  Even  that 
irhich  makes  Annas  high-priest  together  icith  Caiaphas  appears  correct,  if 
we  consider  the  peculiar  influence  which  that  ex-high-priest  retained." 
(Leben  Jcsu,  §  44 ;  pp.  300,  301,  E.  T.) 

NOTE  LXXXV.,  p.  197. 
Joseph.  Ant.  Jud.  xvii.  11,  §  1.     "But  all  who  were  of  the  kindred 


LECT.  VIL  NOTES.  409 

of  Archelaus  refused  to  join  themselves  to  him,  on  account  of  their 
hatred  towards  him."     Compare  13,  §  2. 

NOTE  LXXXVL,  p.  197. 
Joseph.  De  Bell.  Jud.  ii.  1,  §  3. 

NOTE  LXXXVIL,  p.  198. 
Strauss,  Leben  Jesu,  §  48  ;  vol.  i.  p.  346,  E.  T. 

NOTE  LXXXVIIL,  p.  198. 

Josephus  says,  "  Herod  the  tetrarch  had  married  the  daughter  of 
Aretas,  and  had  now  lived  with  her  a  long  time.  But  having  made  a 
journey  to  Rome,  he  lodged  in  the  house  of  Herod,  his  brother,  but  not 
by  the  same  mother.  For  this  Herod  was  the  son  of  the  daughter  of 
Simon,  the  high-priest.  Now  he  fell  in  love  with  Herodias,  this  man's 
wife,  who  was  the  daughter  of  Aristobulus  their  brother,  and  the  sister 
of  Agrippa  the  Great ;  and  he  had  the  boldness  to  propose  marriage. 
She  accepted  the  proposal,  and  it  was  agreed  that  she  should  go  to  live 
with  him,  whenever  he  should  return  from  Rome."  (Ant.  Jud.  xviii.  5, 
§  1.)  And  again:  "Herodias,  their  sister,  was  married  to  Herod,  the 
son  of  Herod  the  Great,  who  was  born  of  Mariamne,  the  daughter  of 
Simon  the  high-priest,  who  had  also  a  daughter  Salome ;  after  the  birth 
of  whom,  Herodias,  in  shameful  violation  of  the  customs  of  our  nation, 
allowed  herself  to  marry  Herod,  the  brother  of  her  former  husband 
by  the  same  father,  separating  from  him  while  he  was  living.  Now 
this  man  [whom  she  married]  held  the  office  of  tetrarch  of  Galilee." 
(Ibid.  §  4.) 

NOTE  LXXXIX.,  p.  198. 

Ant.  Jud.  xviii.  5,  §  2  :  "Now  some  of  the  Jews  thought  that  the 
army  of  Herod  had  been  destroyed  by  God,  in  most  righteous  ven 
geance  for  the  punishment  inflicted  upon  John,  surnamed  the  Baptist. 
For  he  taught  the  Jews  to  cultivate  virtue,  and  to  practise  righteous 
ness  towards  each  other,  and  piety  towards  God,  and  so  to  come  to 
baptism.  For  he  declared  that  this  dipping  would  be  acceptable  to 
Him,  if  they  used  it,  not  with  reference  to  tJie  renunciation  of  Certain 

35 


410  NOTES.  LECT.  VII. 

sins,  but  to  the  purification  of  the  body,1  the  soul  having  been  purified 
by  righteousness.  And  when  others  thronged  to  him,  (for  they  were 
profoundly  moved  at  the  hearing  of  his  words,)  Herod  feared  that  his 
great  influence  over  the  men  would  lead  them  to  some  revolt,  (for  they 
seemed  ready  to  do  any  thing  by  his  advice  ;)  he  therefore  thought  it 
much  better  to  anticipate  the  evil,  by  putting  him  to  death,  before  he 
had  attempted  to  make  any  innovation,  than  to  allow  himself  to  be 
brought  into  trouble,  and  then  repent  after  some  revolutionary  move 
ment  had  conmenced.  And  so  John,  in  consequence  of  the  suspicion  of 
Herodt  was  sent  as  a  prisoner  to  the  afore-mentioned  castle  of  Macharus, 
and  was  there  put  to  death"  The  genuineness  of  this  passage  is  admit 
ted  even  by  Strauss.  (Lcben  Jesu,  $  48  ;  vol.  i.  pp.  344-347,  E.  T.) 

NOTE  XC.,  p.  198. 

Strauss,  Leben  Jesu,  1.  s.  c.  The  chief  points  of  apparent  difference 
are  the  motive  of  the  imprisonment  and  the  scene  of  the  execution. 
Josephus  makes  fear  of  a  popular  insurrection,  the  Evangelists  offence 
at  a  personal  rebuke,  the  motive.  But  here  (as  Strauss  observes)  there 
is  no  contradiction,  for  "Antipas  might  well  fear  that  John,  by  his 
strong  censure  of  the  marriage  and  the  whole  course  of  the  tetrarch's 
life,  might  stir  up  the  people  into  rebellion  against  him."  Again,  from 
the  Gospels  we  naturally  imagine  the  prison  to  be  near  Tiberias,  where 
Herod  Antipas  ordinarily  resided ;  but  Josephus  says  that  prison  was 
at  Machrerus  in  Persca,  a  day's  journey  from  Tiberias.  Here,  however, 
an  examination  of  the  Gospels  shows,  that  the  place  where  Antipas 
made  his  feast  and  gave  his  promise  is  not  mentioned.  It  only  appears 
that  it  was  near  the  prison.  Now,  as  Herod  was  at  this  time  engaged 
in  a  war  with  Aretas,  the  Arabian  prince,  between  whose  kingdom  and 
his  own  lay  the  fortress  of  Machserus,  it  is  «'  a  probable  solution"  of 
the  difficulty,  that  he  was  residing  with  his  court  at  Machscrus  at  this 
period.  (Strauss,  §  48,  ad  fin.) 

NOTE  XCL,  p.  198. 
Philip  is  said  to  have  retained  his  tetrarchy  till  the  20th  year  of  Tibe- 

1  Dr.  Burton  acutely  remarks  on  this  expression,  that  it  is  a  covert  allusion  to  the 
Christian  doctrine  of  "a  baptism  for  the  remission  of  sins,"  and  shows  the  acquaintance 
of  Josephus  with  the  tenets  of  the  Christians.  (Eccles.  Hist.  vol.  i.  p.  199.) 


LECT.  VII.  NOTES.  411 

rius.  (Ant.  Jud.  xviii.  5,  §  6.)     Herod  Antipas  lost  his  government  in 
the  first  of  Caligula.     (Ibid.  ch.  70 

NOTE  XCIL,  p.  198. 

Ant.  Jud.  xvii.  12  ;  xviii.  1 ;  De  Bell.  Jud.  ii.  8,  §  1.  "  Now,  when  the 
territory  of  Archelaus  was  formed  into  a  province,  a  certain  procurator, 
of  equestrian  rank  among  the  Romans,  Coponius  by  name,  was  sent  to 
govern  it,  receiving  from  Cassar  the  power  of  life  and  death."  The 
procurators  for  this  period,  mentioned  by  Josephus,  are  Coponius,  M. 
Ambivius,  Annius  Rufus,  Valerius  Gratus,  and  Pontius  Pilate.  (Ant. 
Jud.  xviii.  2,  §  2.) 

NOTE  XCm.,  p.  198. 

Joseph.  Ant.  Jud.  xviii.  6,  §§  10,  11  ;  8,  §  7 ;  xix.  5,  §  1 ;  Philo,  In 
Place.,  p.  968,  D.  E. 

NOTE  XCIV.,  p.  198. 

Joseph.  Ant.  Jud.  xix.  8,  §  2  :  "  Now,  after  he  had  reigned  three  full 
years  over  the  whole  of  Judaea,  he  was  at  the  city  of  Ccesarea,  which  was 
formerly  called  Strato's  Tower.  And  there  he  held  public  shows  in 
honor  of  Caesar,  having  learned  that  a  certain  festival  was  celebrated  at 
that  time,  to  make  vows  for  his  safety.  Now,  at  that  festival  there  were 
assembled  a  multitude  of  those  who  were  first  in  office  and  authority  in 
the  province.  On  the  second  day  of  the  shows,  putting  on  a  robe  made 
entirely  of  silver,  the  texture  of  which  was  truly  wonderful,  he  came 
into  the  theatre  early  in  the  morning.  When  the  first  beams  of  the  sun 
shone  upon  the  silver,  it  glittered  in  a  wonderful  manner,  flashing  forth 
a  brilliancy  which  amazed  and  awed  those  who  gazed  upon  him. 
Whereupon  his  flatterers  immediately  cried  out,  (though  not  for  his 
good,)  one  from  one  place  and  one  from  another,  —  addressing  him  as  a 
god,  —  « Be  propitious  to  us ; '  and  adding,  '  Although  we  have  here 
tofore  feared  thee  as  a  man,  yet  henceforth  we  acknowledge  thee  to  be 
of  more  than  mortal  nature.'  The  king  did  not  rebuke  them,  nor  reject 
their  impious  flattery.  A  little  after,  therefore,  looking  up,  he  saw  an 
owl  sitting  upon  a  certain  rope  over  his  head  ;  and  he  immediately  un 
derstood  that  it  was  a  messenger  of  evil,  as  it  had  formerly  been  of 
good  ;  whereupon  he  was  overcome  with  a  profound  sadness.  There 


412  NOTES.  LECT.  VII. 

was  also  a  severe  pain  in  his  bowels,  which  began  with  a  sudden  vio 
lence.  Turning  therefore  to  his  friends,  he  said,  —  '  I,  your  god,  am 
now  commanded  to  end  my  life  ;  and  fate  immediately  reproves  the  false 
shouts  that  were  just  now  addressed  to  me :  and  so  I,  whom  you  call 
immortal,  am  now  snatched  away  by  death.  But  we  must  accept  the 
fate  which  God  ordains.  And  indeed  we  have  not  lived  ill,  but  in  the 
most  brilliant  good  fortune.'  When  he  had  said  this,  he  was  overcome 
by  the  intensity  of  the  pain.  He  was  therefore  quickly  carried  to  the 
palace,  and  the  report  went  abroad  to  all,  that  he  must  inevitably  soon 
die.  .  .  .  Being  consumed  thus  for  five  days  in  succession  with  the  pain 
in  his  belly,  he  departed  this  life." 

NOTE  XCV.,  p.  199. 

Ibid.  xix.  9,  §  2  :  "  [Claudius]  therefore  sent  Cuspius  Fadus  as  a 
procurator  over  Judeea,  and  all  the  kingdom." 

NOTE  XCVL,  p.  199. 

Ibid.  xx.  5,  §  2 ;  7,  §  1  ;  and  8,  {  4.  Agrippa  II.  bore  the  title  of 
king.  (De  Bett.  Jud.  ii.  12,  §  8.) 

NOTE  XCVIL,  p.  199. 

Antiq.  Jud.  xix.  9,  §  1 ;  xx.  7,  §  3.  The  evil  reports  which  arose 
from  this  constant  companionship  are  noticed  by  Josephus  in  the  latter 
of  these  passages.  They  are  glanced  at  in  the  well-known  passage  of 
Juvenal,  (Sat.  vi.  155-169.)  "That  well-known  diamond,  made  even 
more  precious  by  being  worn  on  the  finger  of  Berenice.  This  jewel  the 
barbarian  formerly  gave  to  that  unchaste  woman,  and  Agrippa  gave  it 
to  his  sister,  in  that  country  where  kings  keep  the  Sabbath  festival  with 
naked  feet,  and  an  ancient  indulgence  allows  the  old  men  to  eat  pork." 
Compare  Tacit.  Hist.  ii.  2  and  81. 

NOTE  XCVIIL,  p.  199. 

Joseph.  Ant.  Jud.  xx.  8,  §  8 ;  9,  §  7  :  "  The  king  had  been  intrusted 
by  Claudius  Cccsar  with  the  care  of  the  temple."  In  one  passage  (Ant. 
Jud.  xx.  1,  §  3)  Josephus  says  that  these  privileges  continued  to  be 


LECT.  VII.  NOTES.  413 

exercised  by  the  descendants  of  Herod,  king  of  Chalcis,  from  his  de 
cease  to  the  end  of  the  war.  But  he  here  uses  the  term  "  descendants  " 
very  loosely ;  or  he  forgets  ^hat  Agrippa  II.  was  the  nephew,  and  not 
the  son,  of  this  monarch.  (See  the  note  of  Lardner,  Credibility,  vol.  i. 
p.  18,  note  6.) 

NOTE  XCIX.,  p.  199. 

The  procuratorship  of  Pilate  lasted  from  the  12th  year  of  Tiberius 
(A.  D.  26)  to  the  22d,  (A.  D.  36.)  See  Joseph.  Ant.  Jud.  xviii.  3,  §  2, 
and  4,  §  2.  Felix  entered  upon  his  office  as  sole  procurator  in  the  12th 
year  of  Claudius,  (A.  D.  53,)  and  was  succeeded  by  Porcius  Festus 
early  in  the  reign  of  Nero.  (Ant.  Jud.  xx.  7,  §  1 ;  and  8,  §  9.) 

NOTE  C.,  p.  199. 

The  vacillation  and  timidity  of  Pilate  appear  in  his  attempt  to  estab 
lish  the  images  of  Tiberius  in  Jerusalem,  followed  almost  immediately 
by  their  withdrawal.  (Ant.  Jud.  xviii.  3,  §  1.)  His  violence  is  shown 
in  his  conduct  towards  the  Jews  who  opposed  his  application  of  the 
temple-money  to  the  construction  of  an  aqueduct  at  Jerusalem,  (ibid. 
§  2,)  as  well  as  in  his  treatment  of  the  Samaritans  on  the  occasion 
which  led  to  his  removal.  (Ibid.  4,  §  1.)  Agrippa  the  elder  speaks  of 
the  iniquity  of  his  government  in  the  strongest  terms,  (ap.  Philon.  Ley. 
ad  Caium,  p.  1054  :  "  he  feared  lest  they  should  examine  and  expose 
the  misdeeds  of  his  former  procuratorship,  the  taking  of  bribes,  the  acts 
of  violence,  the  extortions,  the  tortures,  the  menaces,  the  repeated  mur 
ders  without  any  form  of  trial,  the  harsh  and  incessant  cruelty.") 

NOTE  CL,  p.  199. 

Tacitus  says  of  Felix,  "  Antonius  Felix  exercised  the  royal  author 
ity  in  a  manner  agreeable  to  the  baseness  of  his  disposition,  with  all 
cruelty  and  wantonness."  (Hist.  v.  9.)  And  again  :  "But  his  father, 
whose  surname  was  Felix,  did  not  conduct  himself  with  the  same  mod 
eration.  Having  been  a  long  time  governor  of  Judaea,  he  thought  he 
could  commit  all  crimes  with  impunity,  relying  upon  his  great  power." 
(Ann.  xii.  54.) 

Josephus  gives  a  similar  account  of  his  government.  (Ant.  Jnd. 
xx.  8.)  After  he  quitted  office  he  was  accused  to  the  emperor,  and 

35* 


414  NOTES.  LECT.  VII. 

only  escaped  a  severe  sentence  by  the  influence  which  his  brother  Pallas 
possessed  with  Nero. 

NOTE  CIL,  p.  19$. 

See  Ant.  Jud.  xx.  8,  §§  10,  11  ;  Bell.  Jud.  ii.  14,  §  1.  In  the  latter 
passage  Josephus  says,  "  Now  Festus,  having  succeeded  this  man  in 
the  office  of  procurator,  relieved  the  country  of  its  greatest  scourge. 
For  he  captured  a  large  number  of  the  robbers,  and  destroyed  not  a 
few.  But  Albinus,  who  succeeded  Festus,  did  not  govern  after  the 
same  manner.  For  it  is  not  possible  to  mention  any  form  of  evil-doing 
which  he  omitted  to  practise." 

NOTE  CIIL,  p.  199. 
See  above,  Notes  C.  and  CI. 

NOTE  CIV.,  p.  199. 

Here  the  accuracy  of  St.  Luke  is  very  remarkable.  Achaia,  though 
originally  a  senatorial  province,  (Dio  Cass.  liii.  p.  503,  E.,)  had  been 
taken  into  his  own  keeping  by  Tiberius,  (Tacit.  Ann.  i.  76,)  and  had 
continued  under  legates  during  the  whole  of  his  reign.  Claudius, 
however,  in  his  fourth  year  restored  the  province  to  the  senate,  (Suet. 
vit.  Claud.  §  35,)  from  which  time  it  was  governed  by  proconsuls.  St. 
Paul's  visit  to  Corinth  fell  about  two  years  after  this  change. 

NOTE  CV.,  p.  109. 

Seneca  says  of  Gallio,  "I  used  to  say  to  you,  that  my  brother 
Gallio,  {whom  every  body  loves  as  much  as  I  do,  although  no  one  can  love 
him  more,)  while  he  was  free  from  all  other  vices,  had  a  special  hatred 
to  this."  And  again:  "No  other  mortal  is  so  dear  to  any  one,  as  he 
is  to  all."  (Quast.  Nat.  iv.  Praefat.)  Statius  uses  the  same  epithet, 
(Sylv.  ii.  7,  11.  32,  33:)  "This  is  more  than  to  have  given  Seneca 
to  the  world,  or  to  have  been  the  parent  of  dear  Gallio." 

NOTE  CVL,  p.  200. 

See  Joseph.  Ant.  Jud.  xvii.  12,  §  5 ;  xviii.  1,  §  1.  «« Moreover  Cyre- 
nius  came  also  into  Judea,  which  had  been  annexed  to  Syria,  to  make  a 


LECT.  VII.  NOTES.  415 

valuation  of  their  property,  and  to  dispose  of  the  money  of  Archelaus. 
But  the  people,  although  at  first  they  could  hardly  endure  to  hear  of 
an  enrolment,  at  length  submitted,"  &c.  The  difficulty  with  respect 
to  the  time  of  the  taxing  will  be  considered  in  Note  CXIX. 

NOTE  CVIL,  p.  200. 

There  was  a  Sergius  Paulus  who  bore  the  office  of  consul  in  the  year 
A.  D.  94.  Another  held  the  same  office  in  A.  D.  168.  This  latter  is 
probably  the  Sergius  Paulus  mentioned  by  Galen.  (Anat.  i.  1,  vol.  ii. 
p.  218  ;  De  Prcenot.  §  2 ;  vol.  xiv.  p.  612.) 

NOTE  CVIIL,  p.  200. 

Cyprus  was  originally  an  imperial  province,  (Dio  Cass.  liii.  p.  504, 
A.,)  and  therefore  governed  by  legates  or  propraetors,  (Strab.  xiv.  6, 
§  6  ;)  but  Augustus  after  a  while  gave  it  up  to  the  Senate,  from  which 
time  its  governors  were  p'roconsuls.  (See  Dio,  liv.  p.  523,  B.  "At 
that  time  therefore  he  gave  up  Cyprus  and  Gallia  Narbonensis  to  the 
people,  as  having  no  further  need  of  his  arms ;  and  so  proconsuls  began 
to  be  sent  to  those  nations.")  The  title  of  proconsul  appears  on 
Cyprian  coins,  and  has  been  found  in  a  Cyprian  Inscription  of  the 
reign  of  Claudius.  (Boeckh,  Corp.  Inscript.  No.  2632.) 

NOTE  CIX.,  p.  200. 

Joseph.  Ant.  Jud.  xiv.  13,  §  3  ;  De  Bell.  Jud.  i.  13,  §  1  ;  Dio  Cass. 
xlix.  p.  411,  B.  This  Lysanias  was  the  son  of  Ptolemy,  son  of  Men- 
nseus,  and  seems  to  have  been  king  of  Chalcis  and  Itursea,  inheriting 
the  former  from  his  father,  and  receiving  the  latter  from  Mark  Antony. 
See  the  passages  above  cited. 

NOTE  CXM  p.  200. 

Lysanias,  the  son  of  Ptolemy,  was  put  to  death  by  Antony,  at  the 
instigation  of  Cleopatra,  (Joseph.  Ant.  Jnd.  xv.  4,  §  1,  certainly  before 
the  year  of  Rome  719,  B.  C.  35.  (See  Dio  Cass.  1.  s.  c.) 

NOTE  CXI.,  p.  200. 
So  Strauss,  J^eben  Jesv,  §  44;  vol.  i.  p.  302,  E.  T. 


416  NOTES.  LECT.  VII. 

NOTE  CXIL,  p.  200. 

Ibid.  p.  301.  "  "We  cannot  indeed  prove  that,  had  a  younger  Lysa- 
nias  existed,  Josephus  must  have  mentioned  him,"  &c. 

NOTE  CXHI.,  p.  200. 

Strauss  assumes,  without  an  atom  of  proof,  that  Abila  (or  Abilene) 
was  included  in  the  kingdom  of  Lysanias,  the  contemporary  of  An 
tony.  It  is  never  mentioned  as  a  part  of  his  territories.  Indeed,  as 
Dr.  Lee  has  remarked,1  it  seems  to  be  pointedly  excluded  from  them. 
Agrippa  the  First  received  "the  Abila  of  Lysanias"  from  Claudius, 
at  the  very  time  when  he  relinquished  the  kingdom  of  Chalcis,  which 
formed  the  special  territory  of  the  old  Lysanias.  (Joseph.  De  Bell. 
Jud.  ii.  12,  §  8  ;  Ant.  Jud.  xix.  5,  §  1.)  Thus  it  would  appear  that 
Josephus  really  intends  a  different  Lysanias  from  the  son  of  Ptolemy  in 
these  two  passages.  Even,  however,  if  this  were  not  the  case,  his 
silence  would  be  no  proof  that  a  second  Lysanias  had  not  held  a 
tetrarchy  in  these  parts  at  the  time  of  John's  ministry.  That  Abila 
formed  once  a  tetrarchy  by  itself  seems  implied  in  the  subjoined  pas 
sage  from  Pliny —  "  Tetrarchies,  each  forming  a  sort  of  province,  inter 
sect  these  cities,  and  bind  them  together,  and  these  again  are  united 
into  kingdoms,  as  the  tetrarchy  of  Trachonitis,  of  Paneas,  of  Abila," 
&c.  (H.  N.  v.  18,  ad  fin.) 

NOTE  CXIV.,  p.  201. 
See  above,  Notes  IV.,  LXXXIX.,  and  XCIV. 

NOTE  CXV.,  p.  201. 
Strauss,  Leben  Jesu,  §  32 ;  vol.  i.  p.  301,  E.  T. 

NOTE  CXVL,  p.  201. 

See  the  Zeitschrift  fUr  geschichtliche  Rechtwissenschaft,  vol.  vi.,  quoted 
by  Olshausen  in  his  Biblischer  Commentar,  (vol.  i.  p.  125  ;  p.  116,  E.  T.) 
On  the  general  question,  see  Alford's  Greek  Testament,  vol.  i.  p.  315. 

1  See  his  Inspiration  of  Holy  Scripture,  Lecture  VIII.,  p.  403,  note  2.  I  am  indebted  to 
my  friend,  Mr.  M.-msel,  for  my  knowledge  of  this  excellent  work. 


LECT.  VII.  NOTES.  417 

NOTE  CXVH.,  p.  201. 
Ant.  Jud.  xviii.  1,  §  1.     See  above,  Note  CVI. 

NOTE  CXYIH.,  p.  201. 
Strauss,  Leben  Jesu,  §  32,  p.  204,  E.  T. 

NOTE  CXIX.,  p.  202. 

The  following  explanations  of  Luke  ii.  2,  have  been  proposed  :  (1.) 
It  has  been  proposed  to  take  vpurrj l  with  aroypa^j),2  to  regard  Kvpijvlov3  as 
a  genitive  dependent  on  draypc^,4  and  ^ytfiovfiovro^  as  equivalent  to 
T)yin6vosf  or  iiyinovtlvavTos.1  The  passage  is  then  translated,  "  This  was 
the  first  assessment  of  Cyrenius,  once  governor  of  Syria."  (See  Lard- 
ner,  Credibility,  vol.  i.  pp.  173-175.) 

(2.)  Only  slightly  different  from  this  is  the  view  of  Beza8  and  others, 
which  takes  "  first "  in  the  same  way,  but  regards  byipoviiiovros  Kupj/i/fou  9  as 
a  genitive  absolute,  and  renders  the  verse,  "This  first  assessment  was 
made  when  Cyrenius  was  governor  of  Syria."  Both  these  explana 
tions  suppose  that  Cyrenius  made  two  assessments,  one  before  he  was 
actual  President  of  Syria  and  one  afterwards.  The  former  regards 
Cyrenius  as  designated  by  his  subsequent  title  ;  the  latter  supposes  that 
he  may  have  been  called  "governor"  when  strictly  speaking  he  was 
not  so,  but  had  a  certain  degree  of  authority.  Two  objections  lie 
against  both  views.  1 .  The  ordo  verborum  does  not  allow  us  to  take 
"  first "  with  "taxing."  2.  No  writer  hints  at  Cyrenius  having  been 
twice  employed  to  make  a  census  in  Palestine. 

(3.)  A  third  explanation  is,  that  Trpwr?10  is  for  Trpor/pa,11  and  that  the 
genitive  Kvptjviov 12  depends  upon  it,  the  construction  used  being  analo 
gous  to  that  of  St.  John,  on  irpwroj  pov  >>,13  (i.  15.)  The  meaning  is, 
then,  "This  assessment  was  made  before  the  time  when  Cyrenius  was 
governor  of  Syria."  (Lardncr,  Credibility,  vol.  i.  pp.  165-173  ;  Alford, 
Greek  Testament,  vol.  i.  p.  314.) 

1  First.  2  Taxing,  or  enrolment.  3  Cyreniua.  4  Taxing. 

6  Governing,  or  being  governor.  6  Governor,,  1  Having  been  governor. 

8  See  Lardner,  Credibility,  vol.  i.  p.  171,  note  d. 

9  Cyrenius  governing,  or  when  Cyrenius  was  governor.  10  First. 
U  Former.                            '2  Of  Cyrenius.                              *3  For  he  was  before  me. 


418  NOTES.  LECT.  VII. 

(4.)  Finally,  it  is  maintained  that  lylvtro1  should  be  regarded  as 
emphatic  —  and  that  St.  Luke  means,  as  I  have  suggested  in  the  text, 
that  while  the  enrolment  was  begun  a  little  before  our  Lord's  birth, 
it  was  never  fully  executed  until  Cyrenius  carried  it  through.  Both  this 
and  the  preceding  explanation  seem  to  be  allowable  —  they  are  compat 
ible  with  the  Hellenistic  idiom,  and  do  no  violence  to  history.  As 
Lardner  has  shown,  there  is  abundant  reason  to  believe  that  an  enrol 
ment  was  actually  set  on  foot  shortly  before  the  death  of  Herod.  (See 
the  Credibility,  vol.  i.  pp.  151-159.) 

NOTE  CXX.,  p.  202. 

See  his  Short  View  of  the  Harmony  of  the  Evangelists,  Prop.  xi.  pp. 
145-149. 

NOTE  CXXL,  p.  202. 
Connection  of  Sacred  and  Profane  History,  vol.  ii.  p.  505. 

NOTE  CXXIL,  p.  202. 

Ant.  Jud.  xviii.  1,  §  1.  After  speaking  of  Cyrenius  as  sent  from 
Rome  for  the  express  purpose  of  effecting  a  census,  Josephus  adds, 
"Now  Judas,  a  Gaulonite,  of  the  city  named  Gamala,  taking  as  his 
accomplice  the  Pharisee  Sadduc,  rushed  into  rebellion,  saying  that  the 
imposing  of  the  tribute  was  nothing  short  of  downright  slavery,  and 
summoning  the  people  to  a  struggle  for  freedom."  He  then  speaks  of 
the  success  of  Judas's  efforts,  and  his  formation  of  a  sect,  which  Jo 
sephus  puts  on  a  par  with  those  of  the  Pharisees,  the  Sadducees,  and 
the  Essenes.  "  Of  the  fourth  of  these  sects  of  philosophy,  Judas  the 
Galikean  became  the  leader."  (Ibid.  §  6.) 

NOTE  CXXIH.,  p.  202. 

De  Bell.  Jud.  ii.  17,  §  8.  The  followers  of  Theudas  "  were  scattered 
and  brought  to  nought,"  (Acts  v.  36,)  but  those  of  Judas  the  Galilsean 
"  were  dispersed."  (Ibid,  verse  37.)  It  is  in  exact  accordance  with 
this  distinction  that  the  latter  reappear  in  the  Jewish  war,  while  of  the 
former  we  hear  nothing.  See  Dean  Alford's  note  ad  loc. 

i  Was  made,  or  took  place. 


LECT.  VII.  NOTES.  419 

NOTE  CXXIV.,  p.  202. 
Antiq.  Jud.  xx.  5,  §  1. 

NOTE  CXXV.,  p.  202. 

Ib.  xvi.  10,  §  4  :  "But  at  this  time  Judaea  was  agitated  by  ten  thou 
sand  other  tumults,  and  many  from  all  quarters  rushed  to  arms,  either  in 
the  hope  of  their  own  advantage,  or  out  of  enmity  to  the  Jews." 

NOTE  CXXVL,  p.  203. 

De  Bell.  Jud.  ii.  13,  §  5  :  "But  the  Egyptian  false  prophet  brought 
upon  the  Jews  a  heavier  woe  than  this.  For  this  impostor  came  into 
the  country,  and  persuaded  the  people  that  he  was  a  prophet,  and 
assembled  about  30,000  misguided  men.  Leading  them  about  from  the 
wilderness  to  the  mount  called  the  Mount  of  Olives,  he  thought  he 
would  be  able  from  that  position  to  force  an  entrance  into  the  city,  and 
having  overpowered  the  Roman  garrison,  to  oppress  the  people,  with 
the  help  of  the  soldiers  that  would  break  into  the  city  with  him.  But 
Felix,  meeting  him  with  his  Roman  soldiers,  anticipated  his  attack,  and 
all  the  people  joined  him  in  his  defensive  operations  ;  so  that  when  an 
engagement  took  place,  the  Egyptian  fled  with  a  small  company,  and 
the  greater  part  of  those  who  were  with  him  were  either  destroyed  or 
captured.  But  the  rest  of  the  multitude  were  dispersed,  and  each 
sought  his  own  home  as  secretly  as  possible."  Compare  Antiq.  Jud. 
xx.  8,  §  6. 

NOTE  CXXVH.,  p.  203. 

In  the  parallel  passage  of  the  Antiquities,  {1.  s.  c.,)  Josephus  says 
that  Felix  slew  400  and  captured  200  of  the  Egyptian's  followers.  If 
he  had  really  estimated  their  whole  number  at  30,000,  he  would  scarcely 
have  said,  that  "very  many  (TrAfloroi)  were  killed  or  taken  prisoners," 
when  the  loss  in  both  ways  was  no  more  than  600  men.  It  has  been 
sagaciously  conjectured  that  the  reading  rp^up'ouj1  should  be  replaced 
by  rfrpa/cjo-^iA/oyj,2  having  arisen  from  the  ready  confusion  of  ,A3  with  ,<5,4 
or  ,A3  with  /A.4  (Lardner,  Credibility,  vol.  i.  p.  227.) 

l  30,000.  2  4,000.  3  The  Greek  letter  which  stands  for  30,000.' 

*  The  Greek  U-tter  which  stands  for  4,0 ;0. 


420  NOTES.  LECT.  VIII. 

NOTE  CXXVIII.,  p.  203. 

Ant.  Jud.  xx.  2,  §  6.  Compare  Dio  Cassius,  Ix.  pp.  671,  672  ;  Tacit. 
Ann.  xii.  43  ;  Sueton.  vit.  Claud.  §  18.  Eusebius  mentions  a  famine 
in  Greece  during  the  same  reign.  (Chronica,  pars.  ii.  p.  373,  Ed.  Mai.) 
Josephus  calls  the  famine  in  Judaea,  to  which  he  refers,  "  the  great 
famine."  (Ant.  Jud.  xx.  5,  §  2.) 

NOTE  CXXIX.,  p.  204. 
Alford,  Greek  Testament,  vol.  ii.  p.  53. 

NOTE  CXXX.,  p.  204. 

See  an  article  "  on  the  Bible  and  Josephus,"  in  the  Journal  of  Sacred 
Literature  for  October,  1850. 

NOTE  CXXXI.,  p.  205. 

S.  Ambrose,  Comment,  in  Psalm,  cxviii.  §  37.  (Opera,  vol.  i.  p. 
1206.) 

NOTE  CXXXIL,  p.  205. 
Ibid.  Explic.  Luc.  x.  §  171.     (Opera,  vol.  i.  p.  1542.) 

NOTE  CXXXIIL,  p.  205. 
Irenaeus,  Advers.  Hares,  iii.  1.     (Opera,  vol.  ii.  p.  6.) 


LECTURE    VIII. 

NOTE  I.,  p.  207. 

Of  all  our  writers  on  the  Evidences,  Lardner  is  the  only  one  who 
appears  to  be  at  all  duly  impressed  with  a  feeling  of  the  value  of  Chris 
tian  witnesses.  lie  devotes  nearly  two  volumes  to  the  accumulation  of 
their  testimonies.  (See  his  Credibility,  vols.  i.  ii.  and  iii.)  Paley  does 


LECT.  VIII.  NOTES.  421 

not  make  any  use  of  Christian  writers  to  prove  the  facts  of  Christianity ; 
he  only  cites  them  as  witnesses  to  the  early  existence  and  repute  of  our 
Historical  Scriptures.  Butler  in  a  general  way  refers  to  the  evidence 
of  the  "first  converts,"  (Analogy,  part  ii.  ch.  7,  p.  291 ;)  but  omits  to 
enlarge  on  the  point.  And  this  is  the  general  spirit  of  our  Apologists. 

NOTE  n.,  p.  207. 

So  Celsus,  (ap.  Origen.  Contr.  Gels.  iii.  44.)  Strauss  endeavors  to 
diminish  the  authority  of  the  Apostles,  and  first  preachers  of  Chris 
tianity,  by  contrasting  the  darkness  of  Galilee  and  Judaea  with  the 
enlightenment  of  "highly  civilized  Greece  and  Rome."  (Lebcn  Jesu, 
§  13,  sub  fin. ;  vol.  i.  p.  64,  E.  T.) 

NOTE  HI.,  p.  208. 

Stromata,  ii.  pp.  464,  489,  490;  v.  p.  677;  vi.  p.  770.  Clement 
believes  the  writer  to  be  the  companion  of  St.  Paul.  (See  Strom,  ii. 
p.  489  :  "I  have  no  need  to  multiply  words,  for  I  have  the  testimony 
of  the  Apostolic  Barnabas.  Now  he  was  one  of  the  seventy,  and  was  a 
co-worker  with  Paul."  He  then  quotes  from  the  extant  Epistle.) 

NOTE  IV.,  p.  208. 
Contra  Celsum,  i.  §  63  ;  p.  378,  B. ;  De  Princip.  iii.  2,  §  4  ;  p.  140,  E. 

NOTE  V.,  p.  208. 

Professor  Norton  assigns  the  Epistle  of  Barnabas  to  "  the  middle  of 
the  second  century,"  (Genuineness  of  the  Gospels,  vol.  i.  p.  347  ;)  but  on 
very  insufficient  evidence.  Lardner  gives  A.  D.  71  or  72  as  the  proba 
ble  date  of  its  composition.  (Credibility,  vol.  i.  p.  285.) 

M.  Bunsen,  while  rejecting  the  view  that  it  was  written  by  the  com 
panion  of  St.  Paul,  puts  its  composition  "  about  15  years  before  that  of 
the  Gospel  of  St.  John,"  or  some  time  before  the  close  of  the  first 
century.  (Hippolytus  and  his  Age,  vol.  i.  p.  54.) 

The  genuineness  of  the  Epistle  has  been  well  defended  by  Dr,  Lee, 
who  thoroughly  exposes  the  common  fallacy,  that,  if  the  work  of  the 
Apostle,  it  must  have  formed  a  portion  of  Canonical  Scripture.  (See  his 
Lectures  on  the  Inspiration  of  Holy  Scripture,  Appendix  E.,  pp.  472-477.) 

36 


422  NOTES.  LECT.  VIII. 


NOTE  VI.,  p.  209. 

See  the  subjoined  passages  —  "In  fine,  by  teaching  Israel,  and  per 
forming  such  wonders  and  signs,  and  preaching,  he  showed  his  great  love 
to  Israel.  But  when  he  chose  his  own  Apostles,  to  preach  his  gospel  .  .  . 
then  he  showed  himself  to  be  the  Son  of  God."  ($  5,  p.  15.)  "Now 
the  servants  who  perform  this  sprinkling,  are  they  who  preach  to  us  the 
remission  of  sins,  and  the  purification  of  the  heart.  For  he  gave  them 
authority  to  proclaim  the  gospel ;  and  they  are  twelve  in  number,  for  a 
testimony  to  the  tribes  ;  for  the  tribes  of  Israel  are  twelve."  (§  8,  p.  25.) 
4 '  He  himself  wished  to  suffer  thus  .  .  .  for  he  who  prophesied  of  him  said 
.  .  .  '  Behold,  /  have  given  my  back  to  the  scoiirges,  and  my  cheeks  to  buf 
ferings.'  "  (§  5,  p.  16.)  "  Then  they  shall  see  him  in  that  day,  having 
about  his  body  the  scarlet  robe  reaching  down  to  the  feet,  and  they  shall 
gay,  '  Is  not  this  he  whom  we  set  at  nought,  and  crucified,  and  pierced, 
and  mocked  ?'"  (§  7,  p.  24.)  "  The  Son  of  God  suffered,  that  his  wound 
might  give  us  life  ;  .  .  .  moreover,  when  he  was  crucified,  they  gave  him 
vinegar  and  gall  to  drink."  (§  7,  pp.  20,  21.)  "  And  again  Moses  made 
a  type  of  Jesus,  [showing]  that  it  was  necessary  that  he,  whom  they 
believed  to  have  perished,  should  suffer,  and  should  so  become  the  author 
of  life."  (§  12,  p.  39.)  "What  then  does  the  prophet  say?  « The  as 
sembly  of  the  wicked  encompassed  me ;  they  surrounded  me,  as  bees 
around  the  comb  ;  and  they  cast  lots  upon  my  raiment.'  Thus  were 
foreshown  the  sufferings  of  him  who  was  about  to  be  manifested  and  to 
suffer."  (§  6,  p.  18.)  "  Wherefore  we  spend  the  eighth  day  in  gladness, 
on  which  also  Jesus  rose  from  the  dead ;  and  when  he  had  shoAvn  him 
self,  he  ascended  to  heaven."  ($  15,  p.  48.) 

NOTE  VII.,  p.  209. 

Lardner,  Credibility,  vol.  i.  p.  289,  et  seqq ;  Burton,  Eccles.  History, 
vol.  i.  pp.  342,  343  ;  Norton,  Genuineness,  &c.,  vol.  i.  pp.  336-338  ; 
Bunsen,  Ilippolytus,  vol.  i.  pp.  44-47  ;  Jacobson,  Prcefat.  ad  S.  Clem. 
Ep.  p.  x.-xvii.,  prefixed  to  his  Patres  Apostolici. 

NOTE  VHI.,  p.  209. 

The  following  are  the  passages  to  which  reference  is  made  in  the 
text:  "  From  him  (i.  e.  Jacob)  came  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  as  to  his 


LECT.  VIII.  NOTES.  423 

flesh."  (§  32,  p.  114.)  "  The  sceptre  of  the  majesty  of  God;  our  Lord 
Jesus  Christ  came  not  with  noisy  boasting  and  pride,  although  he  could 
have  done  so,  but  with  humility."  (§  16,  pp.  60,  62.)  "  His  sufferings 
were  before  our  eyes."  (§  2,  p.  12.)  «« Especially  when  we  remember  the 
•words  of  the  Lord  Jesus,  which  he  spake,  teaching  gentleness  and  long- 
suffering.  For  thus  he  spake  :  « Be  merciful,  that  ye  may  receive 
mercy  ;  forgive,  that  ye  may  be  forgiven ;  as  ye  do,  so  shall  it  be  done 
to  you ;  as  ye  give,  so  shall  it  be  given  to  you  ;  as  ye  judge,  so  shall  ye 
be  judged  ;  as  ye  show  kindness,  so  shall  kindness  be  shown  to  you  ; 
with  what  measure  ye  measure,  with  the  same  shall  ye  be  measured.' " 
(§  13,  p.  52.)  "Let  us  look  to  the  blood  of  Christ,  and  let  us  observe 
how  precious  to  God  is  his  blood,  which  was  shed  for  our  salvation." 
(§  7,  p.  34.)  "  For  the  love  which  he  had  to  us,  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ 
gave  his  blood  for  us,  according  to  the  will  of  God,  and  his  flesh  for 
our  flesh,  and  his  soul  for  our  souls."  (§  49,  p.  178.)  "  That  there  should 
be  a  future  resurrection,  of  which  he  made  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ  the 
first-fruits,  by  raising  him/rom  the  dead."  (§  24,  p.  98.)  '«  Now  Christ 
was  sent  by  God,  and  the  Apostles  by  Christ."  (§  42,  p.  148.)  «»  With  the 
full  assurance  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  the  Apostles  went  forth,  preaching  that 
the  kingdom  of  God  was  about  to  come.  Preaching  thus  through  many 
countries  and  cities,  from  the  first  fruits  of  their  labors,  after  having 
proved  them  by  the  Spirit,  they  appointed  bishops  and  deacons."  (ibid.  pp. 
148,  150.)  "Through  jealousy  and  envy,  the  greatest  and  most  just 
pillars  were  persecuted,  and  came  to  a  violent  end.  Let  us  set  before 
our  eyes  the  good  apostles.  Peter,  through  an  unrighteous  envy,  suf 
fered,  not  one,  nor  two,  but  many  troubles,  and  so  becoming  a  martyr  at 
last,  he  went  to  the  fitting  place  of  glory.  Through  envy  also  Paul 
won.  the  reward  of  patience,  seven  times  wearing  bonds,  being  compelled 
to  flee,  being  stoned,  becoming  a  preacher  to  the  East  and  to  the  West;  and 
he  gained  a  noble  renown  by  his  faith,  having  taught  righteousness  to 
the  whole  world ;  and  having  penetrated  to  the  farthest  west,  he  suffered 
martyrdom  under  the  emperors,"  &c.  (§  5,  pp.  24,  28.) 


NOTE  IX.,  p.  209. 

Ep.ad  Cor.  §  47,  p.  168:  "Take  up  the  Epistle  of  the  blessed 
Apostle  Paul.  What  did  he  write  to  you  first,  in  the  very  beginning 
of  the  gospel.  Truly  he  gave  you  a  spiritual  charge  concerning  him- 


424  NOTES.  LECT.  VIII. 

self,  and  Cephas,  and  Apollos  ;  for  even  then  ye  were  given  to  par 
tialities."     Comp.  1  Cor.  i.  10-12. 


NOTE  X.,  p.  210. 

See  Burton's  Ecclesiastical  History  of  the  First  Three  Centuries,  vol.  i, 
pp.  197  and  357. 

NOTE  XI.,  p.  210. 

Ibid.  vol.  ii.  p.  23.  Compare  Pearson's  Disputatio  de  Anno  quo  S. 
Ignatius  a  Trajano  Antiochia  ad  Bestias  erat  condemnatus,  (printed  in  Dr. 
Jacobson's  Patres  Apostolici^)  vol.  ii.  pp.  524-529.  Pearson  places  the 
Martyrdom  in  A.  D.  116  ;  M.  Bunsen  in  A.  D.  115.  (Hippolytus  and 
his  Age,  vol.  i.  p.  89.) 

NOTE  XII.,  p,  210. 

Two  of  these  Epistles  are  addressed  to  St.  John,  and  the  third  to  the 
Virgin  Mary.  They  exist  in  several  MSS.,  and  were  printed  at  Paris 
as  early  as  A.  D.  1495.  Burton  says  of  them,  "  Two  Epistles  to  St. 
John  and  one  to  the  Virgin  Mary,  which  only  exist  in  Latin,  do  not 
deserve  even  to  be  mentioned."  (Eccles.  Hist.  vol.  ii.  p.  29,  note.)  So 
far  as  I  know,  they  are  not  now  defended  by  any  one. 

NOTE  XIII.,  p.  210. 

Lardner,  Credibility,  vol.  i.  pp.  314,  315  ;  Burton,  Eccles.  Hist.  vol. 
ii.  pp.  29,  30  ;  Schrockh,  Christl.  Kirch.  Geschichte,  vol.  ii.  p.  341,  et 
seqq. ;  Neander,  Geschichte  der  Christl.  Religion,  vol.  ii.  p.  1140;  Kiste 
in  Illgen's  Zeitschrift  ftir  historische  Theologie,  II.  ii.  pp.  47-90  ;  Jacob- 
son,  Patres  Apostolici,  vol.  ii.  pp.  262-470  ;  Hefele,  Patntm  Apostolico- 
rum  Opera,  3d  edition,  Prolegomena,  p.  Iviii. 

NOTE  XIV.,  p.  210. 

Euseb.  Hist.  Eccles.  iii.  36  ;  Hieronym.  De  Viris  Illustr.  c.  xvi.,  (Op. 
vol.  ii.  p.  841,  ed.  Vallars.)  The  brief  account  given  in  the  text  of  a 
very  complicated  matter,  requires  a  few  words  of  elucidation,  and  per 
haps,  to  some  extent,  of  correction.  The  twelve  Epistles  in  their 
longer  form  exist  both  in  Greek  and  in  an  ancient  Latin  version. 
Eleven  Epistles  out  of  the  twelve  are  found  in  a  second  Latin  version, 


LECT.  VIII.  NOTES.  425 

likewise  ancient,  which  presents  numerous  important  variations  from 
the  other,  and  is  in  general  considerably  shorter.  Of  these  eleven  Epis 
tles,  the  first  seven,  and  a  fragment  of  the  eighth,  were  found  in  Greek 
in  the  famous  Medicean  manuscript,  which  evidently  gave  the  original 
text  of  the  shorter  Latin  translation.  The  seven  (complete)  Epistles  of 
the  Medicean  MS.  are  nearly,  but  not  quite,  identical  with  the  seven 
Epistle.s  mentioned  by  Eusebius  and  Jerome.  They  consist,  that  is,  of 
six  out  of  the  seven  (viz.,  the  Epistles  to  the  Ephesians,  Magnesians, 
Trallians,  Philadelphians,  Smyrnaoans,  and  Polycarp,)  together  with  a 
letter  to  a  Christian  woman,  Maria  Cassobolita ;  and  there  is  also  in 
the  MS.  a  fragment  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Tarsians.  The  Epistle  to  the 
Romans,  which  is  placed  at  the  end  of  the  shorter  Latin  recension,  is 
not  in  the  Medicean  MS.  ;  but  this  is  explained  by  the  fact  that  that 
MS.  is  a  fragment.  As  it  observes  the  exact  order  of  the  shorter  Latin 
version,  and  seems  to  be  the  text  —  only  somewhat  corrupt  —  from 
which  that  version  was  made,  we  may  conclude,  that  it  contained  ori 
ginally  the  same  eleven  letters.  Thus  we  cannot  base  any  argument  on 
the  identity  of  the  Eusebian  and  Medicean  Epistles.  It  is  not  an  exact 
identity ;  and  the  approach  to  identity  is  perhaps  an  accident. 

NOTE  XV.,  p.  210. 

See  Dr.  Cureton's  Corpus  Ignatianum,  Introduction,  pp.  xxxiv.- 
Ixxxvii. ;  Bunsen,  Hippolytus  and  his  Age,  vol.  i.  pp.  98-103. 

NOTE  XVI.,  p.  211. 

See  Dr.  Jacobson's  Preface  to  the  third  edition  of  his  Patres  Apos- 
tolici,  p.  liv.  ;  Hefele's  Prolegomena,  1.  s.  c.  ;  Professor  Hussey's  Univer 
sity  Sermons,  Preface,  pp.  xiii.-xxxix. ;  Uhlhorn  in  Niedner's  Zeitschrift 
fur  historische  Theologic,  xv.  p.  247,  et  seqq.,  and  Canon  Wordsworth  in 
the  English  Review,  No.  viii.  p.  309,  et  seqq.  The  shorter  Greek  Recen 
sion  is  also  regarded  as  genuine  by  the  present  Regius  Professor  of  He 
brew  in  the  University  of  Oxford. 


NOTE  XVII.,  p.  211. 

The  subjoined  are  the  most  important  of  the  Ignatian  testimonies  to 
the  facts  of  Christianity:     "  Come  together  in  one  faith,  even  in  Jesus 

36* 


426  NOTES.  LECT.  VIII. 

Christ,  who  was  of  the  family  of  David  according  to  the  flesh,  the  Son 
of  man  and  Son  of  God."  (Ep.  ad  Eph.  xx.  p.  302.)  "For  Jesus  Christ 
our  God  was  born  of  Mary,  according  to  the  appointment  of  God,  of  the 
seed  of  David,  but  by  the  Holy  Spirit.  He  was  born,  and  was  baptized," 
&c.  &c.  (Ibid,  xviii.  pp.  296-298.)  "Three  notable  mysteries  were  kept 
secret  from  the  prince  of  this  world,  the  virginity  of  Mary,  and  the 
birth  and  death  of  the  Lord."  (Ibid.  xix.  p.  298.)  "  How  then  was  he 
manifested  to  the  ages  ?  A  star  shone  in  heaven,  brighter  than  all  the 
other  stars,  and  its  lustre  was  indescribable,  and  the  novelty  of  its  ap 
pearance  caused  great  wonder."  (Ibid.  xix.  p.  300.)  "  Our  Lord  .  .  . 
was  truly  born  of  a  virgin,  baptized  by  John,  that  all  righteousness  might 
be  fulfilled  by  him,  and  was  truly  nailed  to  the  cross  in  the  flesh  for  us, 
under  Pontius  Pilate  and  Herod  the  tetrarch."  (Ep.  ad  Smyrn.  i.  p.  416.) 
"We  love  the  prophets  also,  because  they  too  announced  gospel  tidings, 
and  hoped  in  him,  and  waited  for  him  ;  in  whom  also  they  believed, 
and  were  saved  in  the  unity  of  Jesus  Christ,  being  holy  men,  and 
worthy  of  love  and  admiration,  to  whom  also  Jesus  Christ  bore  testimony" 
(Ep.  ad  Philadelph.  v.  pp.  394-396.)  "  On  this  account  the  Lord  received 
the  ointment  upon  his  head,  that  he  might  breathe  upon  his  church  the 
odor  of  immortality."  {Ep.  ad  Ephes.  xvii.  p.  296.)  "  He  suffered  truly, 
as  he  also  truly  raised  himself  from  the  dead."  (Ep.  ad  Smyrn.  ii.  p.  418.) 
"  We  no  longer  keep  the  Sabbath,  but  we  live  a  new  life  on  the  Lord's 
day,  on  ichich  also  our  life  arose  with  him."  (Ep.  ad  Magnes.  ix.  p.  324.) 
"The  prophets  looked  for  him  as  their  teacher  :  and  therefore  he  whom 
they  justly  expected,  when  he  came,  raised  them  from  the  dead."  (Ibid. 
1.  s.  c.)  "For  I  saw  him  in  the  flesh  even  after  his  resurrection,  and 
I  believe  that  he  still  exists.  And  when  he  came  to  Peter  and  his  com 
panions,  he  said  to  them,  '  Take,  and  handle  me,  and  see  that  I  am  not  a 
bodiless  spirit.'  And  immediately  they  touched  him,  and  believed." 
(Ep.  ad  Smyrn.  iii.  p.  420.)  "Now  after  his  resurrection  he  ate  with 
them  and  drank  with  them,  as  one  in  the  flesh."  (Ibid.  1.  s.  c.)  "  Sub 
mit  yourselves  to  the  bishop  and  to  one  another,  as  Jesus  Christ  to  the 
Father,  in  his  human  nature,  and  as  the  Apostles  to  Christ  and  to  the 
Father  and  to  the  Spirit."  (Ep.  ad  Magnes.  xiii.  p.  328.)  "  It  is  neces 
sary  therefore  to  submit  to  the  company  of  presbyters,  as  to  the  Apos 
tles."  (Ep.  ad  Trail,  ii.  p.  334.)  "  Not  as  Peter  and  Paul  do  I  command 
you :  they  were  Apostles,  I  am  a  man  under  sentence."  (Ep.  ad  Rom. 
iv.  p.  368.) 


LECT.  VIII.  NOTES.  427 

NOTE  XVIII.,  p.  211. 

See  Dr.  Cureton's  Corpus  Ignatiamim,  pp.  227-231  ;  and  M.  Bunsen's 
Hippolytus,  vol.  i.  pp.  92-98. 

NOTE  XIX.,  p.  212. 

i 

See  Jaeobson's  Patres  Apostolici,  vol.  ii.  pp.  484-512.  This  work  is 
admitted  to  be  genuine,  even  by  M.  Bunsen.  (Hippolytus,  vol.  i.  pp. 
223-227.) 

NOTE  XX.,  p.  212. 

See  especially  the  following  passages  :  "  Servants  .  .  .  walking  ac 
cording  to  the  truth  of  the  Lord,  who  became  the  servant  of  all."  (§  5,  p. 
494.)  "  We  remember  also  what  the  Lord  said  in  his  teaching,  '  Judge 
not,  that  ye  be  not  judged .-  forgive  and  it  shall  be  forgiven  you  :  be  merciful, 
and  ye  shall  receive  mercy  :  with  what  measure  ye  measure,  it  shall  be 
measured  back  to  you : '  and,  '  blessed  are  the  poor,  and  they  who  are 
persecuted  for  righteousness'  sake,  for  theirs  is  the  kingdom  of  God.' " 
(§  2,  pp.  488-490.)  "  Christ  Jesus,  who  bore  our  sins  in  his  own  body 
on  the  tree ;  who  did  no  sin,  neither  was  guile  found  in  his  mouth ;  but 
he  endured  all  for  us,  that  we  might  live  through  him."  (§  8,  p.  502.) 
"  Whosoever  shall  not  confess  the  testimony  of  the  cross,  is  of  the 
devil."  (§  7,  p.  500.)  "  Our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  who  endured  to  be 
brought  even  to  death  for  our  sins  ;  whom  God  raised,  loosing  the  pains 
of  Hades."  (§  1,  p.  486.)  "  We  believe  in  Hun  who  raised  our  Lord 
Jesus  Christ  from  the  dead,  and  gave  him  glory,  and  a  throne  at  his  right 
hand."  (§2,  p.  486.)  "Whom  (i.  e.  the  Lord)  if  we  shall  please  in 
this  present  world,  we  shall  receive  also  the  future  world,  as  he  promised 
us,  that  he  would  raise  us  from  the  dead."  (§  5,  p.  496.)  "I  beseech 
you  all  therefore  ...  to  exercise  all  patience,  which  also  ye  see  exempli 
fied  before  your  eyes,  not  only  in  the  blessed  Ignatius,  Zosimus,  and 
Rufus,  but  also  in  others  among  you,  and  in  Paul  himself,  and  the  rest 
of  the  Apostles.  For  ye  may  be  assured  that  none  of  these  ran  in  vain, 
but  that  they  are  all  in  the  place  that  is  fitting  for  them,  with  the  Lord, 
for  whom  also  they  suffered."  (§  9,  pp.  502-504.)  "  The  blessed  and 
illustrious  Paul,  who  visited  in  person  the  men  that  then  lived  among 
you,  and  taught  the  word  of  truth  in  a  correct  and  certain  manner, 
and  also,  iclien  he  ivas  absent,  wrote  you  a  letter"  &c.  (§  3,  p.  490.) 


428  NOTES.  LECT.  VIII. 


NOTE  XXI.,  p.  212. 

See  the  Epistle  of  Irenscus  to  Florinus,  preserved  in  Eusebius's  Ec 
clesiastical  History,  (v.  20;  vol.  i.  pp.  359,  360:) — "The  lessons  of 
childhood  are  incorporated  with  the  mind,  and  grow  with  its  growth, 
so  that  I  can  tell  even  the  very  place  where  the  blessed  Polycarp  used 
to  sit  and  discourse,  and  his  going  out  and  coming  in,  and  the  nature 
of  his  life,  and  the  appearance  of  his  person,  and  the  discourses  which 
he  delivered  to  the  multitude,  and  how  he  related  his  intercourse  ivith 
John,  and  with  the  rest  of  those  icho  had  seen  the  Lord,  and  how  he 
remembered  their  words,  and  what  he  had  heard  from  them  concerning 
the  Lord,  and  concerning  his  miracles  ;  —  how  Polycarp  declared  all 
these  things  in  a  manner  agreeable  to  the  Scriptures,  as  he  had  received 
them  from  those  who  were  eye  witnesses  of  the  word  of  life." 

NOTE  XXIL,  p.  212. 

Euseb.  Hist.  Eccles.  iii.  3  ;  vol.  i.  p.  147  ;  Hieronym.  De  Viris  Ittustr. 
x.  p.  831,  ed.  Vallars.  Compare  Origen.  ad  Rom.  xvi.  13. 

NOTE  XXIII.,  p.  212. 

See  the  "Canon"  published  by  Muratori  in  his  Antiquitates  Italia 
Medii  ^vi,1  where  the  writer  (Hegesippus  r)  says,  that  "the  book  of 
the  Shepherd  was  written  very  lately,  in  our  own  times,  by  Hermas, 
while  his  brother  Pius  presided  over  the  Roman  Church  as  bishop." 
And  compare  Burton,  Eccles.  Hist.  vol.  ii.  p.  104  ;  Alford,  Greek  Testa 
ment,  vol.  ii.  p.  441  ;  Bunsen,  Hippohjtus,  vol.  i.  p.  184  ;  and  Norton, 
Genuineness  of  the  Gospels,  vol.  i.  pp.  341,  342. 

NOTE  XXIV.,  p..  212. 

Hermas  mentions  the  mission  of  the  Apostles —  "  Such  are  they  who 
believed  the  apostles,  whom  God  sent  into  all  the  world  to  preach"  (Past. 
iii.  9,  §  25,  p.  122.)  Their  travels  throughout  the  world — "These 
twelve  mountains  which  you  see  are  twelve  nations  wrhich  occupy  the 
whole  earth.  The  Son  of  God  therefore  is  preached  among  them,  by 

i  Vol.  iii.  pp.  853,  854. 


LECT.  VHI.  NOTES.  429 

those  whom  he  sent  to  them."  (Ibid.  §  17,  p.  120.)  Their  sufferings 
are  indicated  in  the  following  passage  :  "I  said  to  him,  «  Sir,  I  wish  to 
know  what  they  have  endured.'  'Hear,  then,'  he  said — '  wild  beasts, 
scourges,  prisons,  crosses,  for  the  sake  of  his  name.' "  (Ibid.  i.  3,  §  2, 
p.  78.) 

NOTE  XXV.,  p.  213. 

See  Burton's  Eccles.  Hist.,  vol.  ii.  p.  73  and  p.  496. 

NOTE  XXVI.,  p.  213. 

Ap.  Euseb.  Hist.  Eccles.  iv.  3;  vol.  i.  p.  230:  "Now  the  works  of 
our  Saviour  were  always  conspicuous  ;  for  they  were  real.  They  who 
were  healed,  and  they  who  were  raised  from  the  dead,  were  seen  not 
only  when  they  were  healed,  and  when  they  were  raised,  but  they  were 
always  visible  afterwards  ;  not  only  while  the  Saviour  sojourned  among 
us,  but  also  after  he  departed,  and  for  a  long  time,  insomuch  that  some 
of  them  have  reached  even  to  our  own  times." 

NOTE  XXVII.,  p.  213. 

Burton,  Eccles.  Hist.  vol.  ii.  p.  Ill ;  Norton  (Genuineness  of  the 
Gospels,  vol.  i.  p.  126)  says  A.  D.  150.  So  the  Benedictine  Editors. 
Bunsen  and  others  date  it  eleven  years  earlier,  A.  D.  139.  (See  Hip- 
polytus  and  his  Age,  vol.  i.  p.  216.  Compare  Bishop  Kaye,  Account  of 
the  Writings  and  Opinions  of  Justin  Martyr,  pp.  11,  12  ;  who,  however, 
declines  to  decide  between  the  earlier  and  the  later  date.) 

NOTE  XXVIIL,  p.  213. 

Burton,  E.  II.,  vol.  ii.  pp.  128,  129.  According  to  its  title,  the 
second  Apology  was  addressed  to  the  Senate  only,  (to  the  Senate  of  the 
Romans  ;)  but  it  contains  expressions  which  imply  that  it  was  addressed 
to  an  emperor,  and  Eusebius  tells  us  that  it  was  actually  offered  to  M. 
Aurelius. 

NOTE  XXIX.,  p.  213. 
Ivaye,  Writings  and  Opinions  of  Justin  Martyr,  ch.  i.  p.  3. 


430  NOTES.  LECT.  VIII. 

NOTE  XXX.,  p.  213. 

Paley,  Evidences,  part  i.  ch.  vii.  p.  75.  Professor  Norton  remarks, 
"  From  these  works  of  Justin  might  be  extracted  a  brief  account  of 
the  life  and  doctrine  of  Christ,  corresponding  with  that  contained  in 
the  Gospels,  and  corresponding  to  such  a  degree,  both  in  matter  and 
words,  that  almost  every  quotation  and  reference  may  be  readily  as 
signed  to  its  proper  place  in  one  or  other  of  the  Gospels." 

NOTE  XXXI.,  p.  215. 

The  following  are  among  the  most  important  of  Justin's  testi 
monies  :  — 

1.  "  Now  Joseph,  who  was  espoused  to  Mary,  wished  at  first  to  put 
away  his  betrothed,  thinking  that  she  had  become  pregnant  by  inter 
course  with  a  man,  that  is  to  say,  by  fornication.  But  he  was  com 
manded  in  a  dream  not  to  put  away  his  wife ;  and  the  angel  who 
appeared  to  him  told  him,  that  what  she  had  conceived  was  by  the 
Holy  Ghost.  Struck  with  awe,  therefore,  he  did  not  put  her  away ; 
but  when  there  was  an  enrolment  in  Judaea,  which  then  took  place  for 
the  first  time  under  Cyrenius,  he  went  up  from  Nazareth,  where  he 
dwelt,  to  Bethlehem,  whence  his  family  originated,  in  order  to  be 
enrolled  ;  for  his  family  was  of  the  tribe  of  Juda,  which  inhabited  that 
part  of  the  land.  And  he,  together  with  Mary,  was  commanded  to  go 
forth  into  Egypt,  and  to  be  there  with  the  child,  until  they  should 
receive  divine  direction  to  return  to  Judaea.  Now  the  child  was  born 
at  that  time  in  Bethlehem,  and  since  Joseph  had  not  any  place  to  lodge 
in  that  village,  he  lodged  in  a  certain  cave,  in  the  neighborhood  of  the 
village.  Thus,  then,  it  happened,  while  they  were  in  that  place,  that 
Mary  brought  forth  Christ,  and  put  him  in  a  manger ;  where  the  Magi 
from  Arabia  found  him  when  they  came ;  .  .  .  and  when  the  Magi 
from  Arabia  did  not  return  to  Herod,  as  he  had  requested  them  to  do, 
but  departed  into  their  own  country  another  way,  as  they  were  com 
manded,  and  when  Joseph,  with  Mary  and  the  child,  had  already  gone 
into  Egypt,  as  they  were  divinely  directed,  Herod,  not  knowing  the 
child  which  the  Magi  had  come  to  worship,  commanded  the  children  in 
Bethlehem  to  be  destroyed  without  distinction."  (Dialog,  cum  TrypJion. 
§  78,  p.  175.) 


LECT.  VIIL  NOTES.  431 

2.  "It  was  necessary  that  [the  sacrifices]  should  cease,  according  to 
the  will  of  the  Father,  at  the  coming  of  his  Son  Jesus  Christ,  who  was 
born  of  a  virgin  of  the  race  of  Abraham,  and  the  tribe  of  Judah,  and 
the  family  of  David."     (Ibid.  §  43,  p.  139.) 

3.  "  The  power  of  God  came  upon  and  overshadowed  the  virgin, 
and  caused  her,  though  a  virgin,  to  conceive  ;  and  the  angel  of  God, 
who  Avas  sent  to  this  virgin  at  that  time,  announced  to  her  glad  tidings, 
saying,  '  Behold,  thou  shalt  conceive  in  thy  womb  by  the  Holy  Ghost, 
and  shalt  bring  forth  a  son,  and  he  shall  be  called  the  Son  of  the  Most 
High,  and  thou  shalt  call  his  name  Jesus ;  for  he  shall  save  his  people 
from  their  sins."     (Apolog.  i.  §  13,  p.  64.) 

4.  "  Then  said  Trypho,  «  So  you  grant  to  us,  that  he  was  circumcised, 
and  observed  the  other  rites  enjoined  by  Moses.'     I  answered,  '  I  have 
granted  it,  and  I  grant  it  now.'  "     (Dial,  cum  Tryphon.  §  67,  p.  164.) 

5.  "  Now  this  king  Herod  inquired  of  the  elders  of  your  people, 
when  the  Magi  from  Arabia  came  to  him,  and  said  « We  have  learned, 
from  a  star  that  has  appeared  in  heaven,  that  a  king  has  been  born  in 
your  country,  and  we  have  come  to  worship  him.'     Then  the  elders 
said  that  it  should  take  place  in  Bethlehem,  because  it  is  thus  written 
in  the  prophet :  '  And  thou,  Bethlehem,'  &c.     Now  when  the  Magi  from 
Arabia  came  to  Bethlehem,  and  had  worshipped  the  child,  and  offered 
him  gifts,  gold,  and  frankincense,  and  myrrh,  inasmuch  as  by  a  revela 
tion  from  heaven  .  .  .  they  were  commanded  not  to  return  to  Herod," 
&c.     (Ibid.  §  78,  pp.  174,  175.) 

6.  "  And  there  (i.  e.  in  Egypt)   [Joseph   and  Mary]   remained   in 
exile,  until  Herod,  who  slew  the  children  in  Bethlehem,  had  died,  and 
Archelaus  had  succeeded  him."     (Ibid.  §  103,  p.  198.) 

7.  •«  Now  that  the  Christ,  who  was  born,  should  be  unknown  to 
other  men  until  he  should  be  grown,  as  it  actually  happened,  hear  what 
was  foretold  on  this  point."     (Apoloy.  i.  §  35,  p.  65.) 

8.  "  Jesus,  when  he  came  to  Jordan,  was  supposed  to  be  the  son  of 
Joseph  the  carpenter,  and  was  regarded  as  a  carpenter,  for  he  performed 
the  works  of  a  carpenter  when  he  was  among  men,  making  ploughs, 
and  yokes,"  &c.     (Dial,  cum  Tryphon.  §  88,  p.  186.) 

9.  "  And  then,  when  Jesus  came  to  the  river  Jordan,  where  John  was 
baptizing,  Jesus  went  down  into  the  water,  and  a  fire  was  kindled  in  the 
Jordan,  and  as  he  came  up  out  of  the  water,  his  apostles  have  testified 
in  writing,  that  the  Holy  Spirit,  in  the  form   of  a  dove,  lighted  upon 
him."     (Ibid.  §  88,  pp.  185,  186.) 


432  NOTES.  LECT.  VIII. 

10.  "For  while  John  was  making  his  abode  on  the  banks  of  the 
Jordan,  and  preaching  the  baptism  of  repentance,  wearing  only  a  leathern 
girdle  and  a  garment  of  camel's  hair,  and  eating  nothing  but  locusts 
and  wild  honey,  men  suspected  that  he  was  the  Christ.     But  he  cried 
out  to  them,   '  I  am  not  the  Christ,  but  the  voice  of  one  crying ;  for 
he  that  is  mightier  than  I  will  come,  whose  shoes  I  am  not  worthy  to 
bear.'  "     (Ibid.  1.  s.  c.  p.  185.) 

11.  «« Now  when  [Christ]  became  a  man,  the  devil  came  to  him,  that 
is  to  say,  that  power  which  is  called  the  Serpent  and  Satan,  tempting 
him,  and  striving  to  cause  him  to  fall,  by  demanding  that  he  should 
worship  him.     But  on  the  contrary  he  was  himself  destroyed  and  cast 
down,  for  Jesus  proved  him  to  be  wicked,  in  demanding,  contrary  to 
the  Scriptures,  to  be  worshipped  as  God,  whereas  he  was  an  apostate 
from  the  will  of  God.     For  he  answered  him,  '  It  is  written,  Thou  shalt 
worship  the  Lord  thy  God,  and  him  only  shalt  thou  serve.' "     (Ibid. 
§  125,  p.  218.) 

12.  "  Now  that  it  was  foretold  of  our  Christ  that  he  should  heal  all 
diseases,  and  raise  the  dead,  hear  the  words  that  were  spoken.     They 
were  these :  '  At  his  coming  the  lame  shall  leap  as  a  hart,  and  the 
tongue  of  the  stammerers  shall  speak  plainly:  the  blind  shall  see,  and 
the  lepers  shall  be  cleansed,  and  the  dead  shall  be  raised,  and  walk.' 
Now  that  he  did  these  things,  you  can  learn  from  the  acts  that  were 
drawn  xip  under  Pontius  Pilate."     (Apolog.  i.  §  48,  p.  72.) 

13.  "  And  from  these  things  we  know  that  Jesus  had  foreknowledge 
of  what  was  to  be  after  him,  and  also  from  many  other  things  which  he 
ioretold  as  about  to  occur  to  those  who  believed  on  him,  and  confessed 
him  to  be  the  Christ.     For  even  what  we  suffer,  in  having*  all  things 
taken  from  us  by  our  kindred,  this  he  foretold  as  about  to  come  upon 
us,  so  that  in  no  respect  does  there  appear  to  be  any  failure  in  his 
word."     (Dial,  cum  Tryphon.  §  35,  p.  133.) 

1L  "  For  Christ  the  Son  of  God,  knowing  by  revelation  from  his 
Father,  one  of  his  disciples  formerly  called  Simon,  gave  him  the  name 
of  Peter."  (Ibid.  §  100,  p.  195.) 

15.  "For  his  changing  the  name  of  Peter,  one  of  the  Apostles,  .  .  . 
as  well  as  his  changing  the  names  of  two  other  brothers,  who  were  sons 
of  Zebedee,  and  whom  ho  called  '  Boanerges,'  which  means  '  sons  of 
thunder,  was  a  significant  intimation  that  he  was  the  Messiah."  (Ibid. 
§  106,  p.  201.) 


LECT.  VIII.  NOTES.  433 

16.  "A  certain  foal  of  an  ass  was  standing  at  the  entrance  of  a  vil 
lage,  tied  to  a  vine.     This  he  commanded  his  friends  to  bring  to  him  at 
that  time  ;  and  when  it  was  brought  he  sat  upon  it,  and  came  into  Jeru 
salem."     {Apolog.  i.  §  32,  p.  63.) 

17.  "The  apostles,  in  the  Memoirs  composed  by  them,  which  are 
called  Gospels,  have  reported  to  us  that  Jesus  enjoined  this  upon  them. 
Taking  bread,  he  gave  thanks,  and  said,  « This  do  in  remembrance  of 
me :  this  is  my  body  ; '  and  taking  the  cup  likewise,  he  gave  thanks, 
and  said,  « This  is  my  blood.'     And  he  distributed  these  to  them  only." 
(Ibid.  §  66,  p.  83.) 

18.  "  On  the  day  on  which  he  was  about  to  be  crucified,  taking  three 
of  his  disciples  to  the  mount  called  the  Mount  of  Olives,  which  lies  near 
to  the  temple  in  Jerusalem,  he  prayed,  saying,  « Father,  if  it  be  possible, 
let  this  cup  pass  from  me.'     And  after  this  he  said  in  his  prayer,  « Not 
as  I  will,  but  as  thou  wilt.'  "     (Dial,  cum  Tryphon.  §  99,  p.  194.) 

19.  "The  power  of  this  same  mighty  word  .  .  .  had  a  suspension ; 
.  .  .  for  he  was  silent,  and  did  not  wish  to  answer  any  one  a  word, 
when  he  was  examined  before  Pontius  Pilate."     (Ibid.  §  102,  p.  197.) 

20.  "Now  Herod  succeeded  Archelaus,  and  assumed  the  authority 
that  was  conferred  upon  him.     To  him  Pilate,  in  order  to  do  him  a 
favor,  sent  Jesus  bound,"  &c.     (Ibid.  §  103,  p.  198  ;  compare  Apolog. 
i.  §  40,  p.  67,  C.) 

21.  "  Now  Jesus  Christ,  when  he  was  crucified  by  the  Jews,  had  his 
hands  extended,  ...  as  said  the  prophet,  .    .    .  'They  pierced  my 
hands  and  my  feet,'  referring  to  the  nails  by  which  his  hands  and  his 
feet  were  fastened  to  the  cross.     And  after  he  was  crucified,  they  cast 
lots  upon  his  raiment."     (Ibid.  §  35,  p.  65  ;  compare  $  38,  p.  66.) 

22.  "After  he  was  crucified,  and  all  his  friends  had  forsaken  and 
denied  him,  —  after  that,  having  risen  from  the  dead,  and  being  seen  by 
them,  he  taught  them  to  study  the  prophecies,  in  which  it  was  foretold 
that  all  these  things  should  come  to  pass  ;  and  when  they  had  seen  him 
ascend  to  heaven,  and  believed,  and  had  received  from  thence  the  power 
which  he  sent  upon  them,  they  went  to  men  of  every  race,  and  taught 
these  things,  and  were  called  Apostles."     (Ibid.  §  50,  p.  73.) 

23.  "And  when  he  yielded  up  his  spirit   on   the   cross,  he   said, 
'  Father,  into  thy  hands  I  commit  my  spirit.' "     (Dial,  cum  Tryphon. 
§  105,  p.  300.) 

37 


434  NOTES.  LECT.  VIII. 

24.  "  For  the  Lord  remained  upon  the  tree  almost  until  the  evening ; 
and  towards  evening  they  buried  him  :  afterwards  he  arose,  on  the  third 
day."     (Ibid.  §  97,  p.  193.) 

25.  "For  there  is  no  race  of  men  whatever,  whether  barbarians  or 
Greeks,  or  by  whatsoever  other  name  they  may  be  called,  whether  liv 
ing  in  wagons,  or  houseless  wanderers,  among  whom  there  are  not 
offered  prayers  and  thanksgivings  to  the  Father  and  Maker  of  all, 
through  the  name  of  the  crucified  Jesus."     (Ibid.  §  117,  p.  211.) 

NOTE  XXXIL,  p.  215. 
See  pages  204  and  205. 

NOTE  XXXIIL,  p.  216. 

See  especially  Baur,  in  the  Tilbinger  Zeitschrift  fUr  TJieologie,  1836, 
fasc.  iii.  p.  199  ;  1838,  fasc.  iii.  p.  149  ;  and  in  a  pamphlet  Ueber  den 
Ursprung  des  Episcopats,  Tubingen,  1838,  pp.  148-185.  Also  compare 
his  work,  Die  Ignatianischen  Bricfen  und  ihr  neuester  Kritiker,  eine 
Streitschrift  gegen  Ilernn  Bunsen,  8vo.,  Tdbingen,  1848.  Schwegler  and 
others  have  followed  in  the  same  track. 

NOTE  XXXIY.,  p.  216. 

I  refer  especially  to  the  labors  of  Signer  Marchi  and  Mons.  Ferret  — 
the  former  in  his  Monumenli  delle  Arte  Cristiane  Primitive  netta  Metropoli 
del  Cristianesimo,  (4to,  Rome,  1844,)  the  latter  in  his  magnificent  work, 
Les  Catacombes  de  Rome,  (6  volumes,  folio,  Faris,  1852-1857.)  In  our 
own  country  two  useful  little  works  have  appeared  on  the  subject  —  Dr. 
Maitland's  Church  in  the  Catacombs,  (London,  1847,)  and  Mr.  Spencer 
Northcote's  Roman  Catacombs,  (London,  1857.)  An  able  Article  in 
the  Edinburgh  Review  for  January,  1859,  (Art.  iv.,) —  to  which  I  must 
here  express  myself  as  under  considerable  obligations  —  has  made  the 
general  public  familiar  with  the  chief  conclusions  established  by  modern 
inquiry. 

NOTE  XXXV.,  p.  217. 

See  Bishop  Burnet's  Letters  from  Italy  and  Switzerland  in  1685  and 
1686,  (Rotterdam,  1687,)  pp.  209-211. 


LECT.  VIII.  NOTES.  435 

NOTE  XXXVI.,  p.  218. 

Spencer  Northcote,  Roman  Catacombs,  p.  4. 

NOTE  XXXVIL,  p.  218. 
See  Note  IV.  on  Lecture  VIL,  p.  383. 

NOTE  XXXVni.,  p.  218. 
Edinburgh  Review  No.  221,  p.  106. 

NOTE  XXXIX.,  p.  218. 

The  grounds  upon  which  Mr.  Spencer  Northcote  bases  his  calcula 
tion  are  these  :  1.  The  incidental  notices  in  the  old  missals  and  office 
books  of  the  Roman  church,  and  the  descriptions  given  by  ancient 
writers,  mention  no  less  than  sixty  different  Catacombs  on  the  different 
sides  of  Home,  bordering  her  fifteen  great  consular  roads.  Of  these 
about  one  third  have  been  reopened,  but  in  only  one  case  has  there 
been  any  accurate  measurement.  Father  Marchi  has  carefully  meas 
ured  a  portion  of  the  Catacomb  of  St.  Agnes,  which  he  calculates  at 
one-eighth  of  the  entire  cemetery,  and  has  found  the  length  of  all  its 
streets  and  passages  to  be  about  two  English  miles.  This  gives  a 
length  of  16  miles  to  the  St.  Agnes'  Catacomb  ;  and  as  that  is  (appar 
ently)  an  average  one  —  certainly  smaller  than  some  as  well  as  larger 
than  some  —  the  60  Catacombs  would  contain  above  900  (9GO)  miles 
of  streets.  2.  The  height  of  the  passages  varies  in  the  Catacombs,  and 
the  layers  of  graves  are  sometimes  more,  sometimes  less  numerous, 
occasionally  not  above  three  or  four,  in  places  thirteen  or  fourteen. 
There  are  also  interruptions  to  the  regular  succession  of  tombs  from  the 
occurrence  of  chapels,  and  monuments  of  some  pretension,  (arcosolia.} 
Allowing  for  these,  it  is  suggested  that  we  may  take  an  average  of  ten 
graves,  five  on  each  side,  to  every  seven  feet  of  street ;  and  this  calcula 
tion  it  is,  which,  applied  to  the  900  miles  of  street,  produces  the  result 
of  nearly  seven  millions  of  graves. 

NOTE  XL.,  p.  219. 

Perret,  Catacombes  de  Rome,  vol.  vi.  p.  101,  et  seqq. ;  Spencer  North 
cote,  Roman  Catacombs,  pp.  29,  30.  For  arguments  to  the  contrary,  see 
Haitian d's  Church  in  the  Catacombs,  pp.  142-151. 


436  NOTES.  LECT.  VIII. 

NOTE  XLL,  p.  219. 

Thus  we  find  such  inscriptions  as  the  following  :  —  "In  the  time  of 
the  Emperor  Adrian,  the  young  man  Marius,  a  general  in  the  army, 
who  lived  long  enough,  since  he  sacrificed  his  life  for  Christ  by  a  bloody 
death,  rested  at  last  in  peace  ;  and  was  buried  with  merited  tears  and 
respect."  (Maitland,  p.  128.)  And,  »  The  wave  of  death  has  not  dared 
to  deprive  Constans  of  the  crown  to  which  he  was  entitled  by  giving 
his  life  to  the  sword."  (Ibid.  p.  129.)  And  again, 

eHCrwPAHANYCTAAAHENYNCHYC 

HYITAATYCIIPw<l>HAECYM<r>AMHA 

HAruTAQYHECCYNTHNIIAKE 

rEw«l>HAAANCHAAA*ECHT 
which  may  be  thus  explained  — 

6rjC   Td}()5riavvf  FaAAj/e 


rja  rwra  qvyiacvvr  rjv  TTaict 
Tita<})T)2.a 


Hie  Gordianus,  Gallics  nunchts, 

Jugulatus  pro  fide,  cumfamil- 

ia  tota,  quiescunt  in  pace. 

Theophila  ancitta  fecit.*     (Ferret,  vol.  vi.  p.  152.) 

NOTE  XLH.,  p.  219. 

The  entire  inscription  runs  as  follows  :  —  "  Alexander  is  not  dead, 
but  lives  above  the  stars,  and  his  body  rests  in  this  tomb.  He  ended 
his  life  under  the  Emperor  Antoninus,  who,  when  he  saw  himself  much 
surpassed  in  conferring  benefits,  returned  hatred  for  kindness.  For 
when  he  was  bending  the  knee  to  offer  the  sacrifice  of  prayer  to  the  true 
God,  he  was  led  away  to  punishment.  O  what  times!"  See  Dr. 
Maitland's  Church  in  the  Catacombs,  pp.  32,  33. 

NOTE  XLIIL,  p.  220. 
"Dormit,"8  "  quiescit,"3  "  depositus  est,"4  are  the  terms  used  ;  and 

1  Here  Gordian,  the  courier  from  Gaul,  strangled  for  the  faith,  with  his  whole  family, 
rests  in  peace.    The  maid-servant  Theophila  erected  this. 
a  He  sleeps.  8  He  rests.  4  He  is  laid  away. 


LECT.  VIII.  NOTES.  437 

from  the  same  idea  burial-places  are  called  by  the  name  which  has 
since  become  common  in  Christian  lands,  viz.,  /co^r^a,  "  cemeteries" 
or  "  sleeping-places."  See  Marchi's  Monumenti  delle  Arte  Cristiani 
Primitive,  &c.,  p.  63;  Spencer  Northcote,  Catacombs,  p.  162.  "In 
pace"  occurs,  either  at  the  beginning  or  at  the  end  of  an  inscription, 
almost  as  a  necessary  formula. 

NOTE  XLIY.,  p.  220. 

Northcote's  Catacombs,  p.  163.  The  contrast  in  this  respect  between 
Christian  and  Heathen  monuments  of  the  same  date  is  very  striking. 
See  Maitland's  Church  in  the  Catacombs,  pp.  42,  43. 

NOTE  XLV.,  p.  220. 

Northcote's  Catacombs,  pp.  50-64.  Compare  M.  Ferret's  splendid 
work,  Les  Catacombes  de  Rome,  where  these  subjects  are  (almost  with 
out  exception)  represented.  The  subjoined  are  the  most  important  ref 
erences.  Temptation  of  Eve,  (vol.  iv.  PI.  31 ;  v.  PL  12 ;)  Moses  strik 
ing  the  Rock,  (vol.  i.  PI.  34,  57  ;  ii.  PI.  22,  27,  33  ;  iii.  PL  2,  6  ;  iv.  PL 
28  ;)  Noah  welcoming  the  Dove,  (vol.  ii.  PL  53,  61 ;  iv.  PL  25,  &c.  ;) 
Daniel  among  the  Lions,  (vol.  ii.  PL  42,  61 ;  iii.  PL  7,  36  ;)  the  Three 
Children,  (vol.  ii.  PL  36,  39  ;  iii.  7  ;)  Jonah  under  the  Gourd,  (vol.  i. 
PL  67  ;  vol.  ii.  PL  22,  28,  39 ;  vol.  iii.  PL  2,  5,  &c. ;)  Jonah  and  the 
Whale,  (vol.  iii.  16,  22  ;  vol.  v.  PL  40,  57  ;)  Adoration  of  the  Magi, 
(vol.  v.  PL  12  ;)  Magi  before  Herod,  (vol.  ii.  PL  48  ;)  Baptism  of  Christ 
by  John,  (vol.  iii.  PL  52,  55  ;)  Cure  of  the  Paralytic,  (vol.  ii.  PL  34, 
48  ;)  Turning  of  Water  into  Wine,  (vol.  iv.  PL  28,  No.  67  ;)  Feeding  of 
the  Five  Thousand,  (vol.  i.  PL  27  ;  iv.  PL  29,  No.  73  ;)  Raising  of  Laz 
arus,  (vol.  i.  PL  26 ;  vol.  ii.  PL  61  ;  vol.  iii.  PL  7,  36 ;  vol.  iv.  PL  25, 
31,  32 ;  vol.  v.  PL  13,  &c. ;)  Last  Supper,  (vol.  i.  PL  29  ;)  Peter  walk 
ing  on  the  Sea,  (vol.  iv.  PL  16,  No.  85 ;)  Pilate  washing  his  Hands, 
(Maitland,  p.  260.)  To  the  historical  subjects  mentioned  in  the  text 
maybe  added  the  following: — The  Nativity,  (Perrct,  vol.  iv.  PL  16, 
No.  84  ;)  the  Conversation  with  the  Woman  of  Samaria,  (ibid.  vol.  i.  PL 
81 ;)  and  the  Crucifixion,  (ibid.  vol.  i.  PL  10 ;  vol.  iv.  PL  33,  No.  103.) 
The  only  unhistorical  scenes  represented,  besides  the  parabolic  ones, 
are  Tobias  and  the  Angel,  (Perret,  vol.  iii.  PL  26,)  and  Orpheus  charm 
ing  the  Beasts,  which  is  frequent. 

37* 


438  NOTES.  LECT.  VIII. 


NOTE  XL VI.,  p.  221. 

Tacit.  Annul,  ii.  39,  40  ;  Suet.  vit.  Tib.  §  25  ;  Dio  Cass.  Ivii.  p.  613,  C. 
Tacitus  indeed  says,  in  speaking  of  the  claim  made  by  Clemens,  "  cred- 
ebatur  Romae ; "  but  it  was  a  faint  belief,  which  Tiberius  thought  of 
allowing  to  die  away  of  itself.  And  though  his  constitutional  timidity 
prevented  him  from  taking  this  course,  he  showed  his  sense  of  the  nu 
merical  weakness  of  the  dupes,  by  bringing  Clemens  to  Rome,  when  he 
might  have  had  him  assassinated  at  Ostia.  Nor  did  his  execution  cause 
any  tumult,  either  at  Rome  or  in  the  provinces. 

NOTE  XL VII.,  p.  222. 
Norton's  Genuineness  of  the  Gospels,  vol.  i.  p.  100. 

NOTE  XLVIH.,  p.  223. 

Martyr.  Ignat.  §  3,  p.  542  :  «« The  cities  and  churches  of  Asia  received 
the  saint,  by  their  bishops,  and  presbyters,  and  deacons ;  and  they  all 
crowded  around  him,  that  they  might  if  possible  obtain  some  portion  of 
spiritual  gifts" 

NOTE  XLIX.,  p.  223. 

So  Eusebius,  who  had  the  works  of  Papias  before  him,  relates.  Hist. 
Eccles.  iii.  39,  p.  224.  *«  [Papias]  relates  that  a  dead  man  was  raised  in 
his  time,  and  moreover  that  another  wonderful  thing  occurred  to  Jus 
tus,  who  was  surnamed  Barsabas,  namely,  that  he  drank  a  deadly  poi 
son,  and  suffered  no  unpleasant  effects,  on  account  of  the  grace  of  the 
Lord." 

NOTE  L.,  p.  223. 

Dialog,  cum  Tryphon.  §  88,  p.  185  :  "Among  us  also  you  may  see 
both  males  and  females  possessing  gifts  from  the  Spirit  of  God."  (Com 
pare  Apolog.  ii.  §  6,  p.  93.)  "For  many  of  our  Christian  people,  exor 
cising  in  the  name  of  Jesus  Christ,  who  was  crucified  under  Pontius 
Pilate,  have  cured,  and  are  even  now  curing,  many  demoniacs  in  your 
own  city  and  in  all  parts  of  the  world,  though  these  persons  could  not 
be  cured  by  alj  other  exorcists,  and  enchanters  and  sorcerers.  But 


LECT.  VIII.  NOTES.  439 

ours  have  overcome  and  driven  out  the  demons  that  possessed  these 
men."     See  also  Tryphon.  §  39,  p.  136  ;  §  76,  p.  173,  and  §  85,  p.  182. 

NOTE  LI.,  p.  223. 
Miltiades  ap.  Euseb.  Hist.  Eccles.  v.  17,  pp.  351,  352. 

NOTE  LIL,  p.  223. 

Adversus  Hareses,  ii.  32,  §  4,  (vol.  i.  pp.  374,  375  :)  "  On  this  account 
also  his  true  disciples,  receiving  grace  from  him,  perform  miracles  in  his 
name  for  the  benefit  of  men,  as  each  of  them  has  received  the  gift  from 
him.  For  some  truly  and  really  expel  demons  ;  .  .  .  and  others  have 
foreknowledge  of  the  future,  and  visions,  and  prophetic  utterances. 
Others  heal  the  sick  and  make  them  well,  by  the  imposition  of  their 
bands.  And  even  now,  as  we  have  said,  the  dead  have  also  been 
raised,  and  have  remained  with  us  many  years."  And  v.  6,  (vol.  ii. 
p.  334  :)  "As  also  we  have  many  brethren  in  the  church  having  pro 
phetic  gifts,  and  speaking  in  all  foreign  tongues,  and  bringing  to  light 
the  secrets  of  men,  for  a  good  purpose." 

NOTE  LIIL,  p.  223. 

See  Tertullian,  Apolog.  §  23  ;  Theophilus,  Ad  Autolyc.  ii.  8,  p.  254, 
C.  D. ;  Minucius  Felix,  Octav.  p.  89.  These  passages  affirm  the  con 
tinuance  of  the  power  of  casting  out  devils  to  the  time  of  the  writers. 
On  the  general  question  of  the  cessation  of  miracles,  Burton's  remark 
(E.  H.,  vol.  ii.  p.  233)  seems  just,  that  "their  actual  cessation  was  im 
perceptible,  and  like  the  rays  in  a  summer's  evening,  which,  when  the 
sun  has  set,  may  be  seen  to  linger  on  the  top  of  a  mountain,  though  they 
have  ceased  to  fall  on  the  level  country  beneath." 

NOTE  LIV.,  p.  224. 

The  vast  number  of  the  Christians  is  strongly  asserted  by  Tertullian, 
Apolog.  §  37  :  "We  are  of  yesterday,  and  yet  we  fill  all  your  places, 
your  cities,  islands,  castles,  towns,  courts,  your  very  camps,  your  tribes, 
your  decuriae,  your  palace,  your  senate,  your  markets.  We  have  left 
you  only  your  temples.  What  wars  we  might  wage,  and  with  what 
energy,  even  against  superior  forces,  we  who  are  so  willing  to  be  slain, 


440  NOTES.  LECT.  VIII. 

if  it  was  not  a  part  of  our  discipline,  that  it  is  better  to  be  killed  than 
to  kill !  We  might  also,  unarmed  and  without  making  any  rebellion, 
but  only  disagreeing  with  you,  contend  against  you  with  the  hostility 
of  separation  only.  For  if  so  great  a  multitude  of  men  as  we  are  should 
suddenly  separate  from  you,  and  retire  to  some  distant  quarter  of  the 
earth,  truly  the  loss  of  so  many  and  such  citizens  would  undermine 
your  dominion  :  yes,  it  would  even  inflict  upon  you  an  absolute  deso 
lation.  Without  doubt  you  would  be  dismayed  at  your  solitude,  at  the 
general  stillness,  and  the  dulness  as  if  of  a  dead  world.  You  would 
look  about  for  some  to  command  ;  you  would  have  more  enemies  left 
than  citizens  :  but  now  you  have  few  enemies,  in  comparison  with  the 
multitude  of  Christians."  See  also  Justin  Martyr,  Dialog,  cum  Try- 
phon.  §  117,  (pp.  210  211,)  quoted  in  note  31,  §  25,  p.  528 

NOTE  LV.,  p.  227. 

The  attempts  of  Strauss  to  prove  variations  in  the  story  —  irrecon 
cilable  differences  between  the  accounts  of  the  different  Evangelists  — 
appear  to  me  to  have  failed  signally.  See  above,  Note  XXXIII.  on  Lec 
ture  VI.,  p.  378. 

NOTE  LVL,  p.  228. 

Strauss  himself  admits  this  difference  to  a  certain  extent,  (Leben  Jesu, 
Einleitung,  §  14  ;  vol.  i.  p.  67,  E.  T.,)  and  grants  that  the  Scripture 
miracles  are  favorably  distinguished  by  it  from  the  marvels  of  Indian 
or  Grecian  fables  ;  but  he  finds  in  the  histories  of  Balaam,  Joshua,  (!) 
and  Samson,  a  similar,  though  less  glaring,  impropriety.  Certainly  the 
speaking  of  the  ass  is  a  thing  sui  generis  in  Scripture,  and  would  be 
grotesque,  were  it  not  redeemed  by  the  beauty  of  the  words  uttered, 
and  the  important  warning  which  they  contain  —  a  warning  still  only 
too  much  needed  —  against  our  cruel  and  unsympathetic  treatment  of 
the  brute  creation. 

NOTE  LVIL,  p.  228. 

Strauss,  Leben  Jesu,  §  144  ;  vol.  iii.  p.  396,  E.  T.  The  entire  passage 
has  been  given  in  Note  XXVI.  on  Lecture  I. 


ADDITIONAL  NOTE  TO  LECTURE   Y. 


On  the  Identification  of  the  Belshazzar  of  Daniel  with  Bil-shar-uzur  son 
of  Nabu-nahit. 

Since  the  foregoing  sheets  were  in  type,  my  attention  has  been  called 
by  an  anonymous  correspondent  to  a  difficulty  in  the  proposed  identifi 
cation  of  Belshazzar  with  Bil-shar-uzur,  son  of  Nabu-nahit,  arising 
from  his  probable  age  at  the  tune  of  the  siege  of  Babylon.  If  Nabu- 
nahit,  (Nabonadius,)  as  suggested  in  the  text,1  married  a  daughter  of 
Nebuchadnezzar  after  his  accession  to  the  throne,  as  he  only  reigned 
seventeen  years  in  all,  Bil-shar-uztir,  supposing  him  the  son  of  this  wife, 
could  have  been  no  more  than  sixteen  years  of  age  when  left  to  ad 
minister  affairs  at  Babylon.  This,  it  is  said,  is  too  early  an  age  for  him 
to  have  taken  the  chief  command,  and  to  have  given  a  great  feast  to 
"  his  princes,  his  wives,  and  his  concubines."  2  The  difficulty  here  started 
does  not  appear  to  me  very  great.  In  the  East  manhood  is  attained  far 
earlier  than  in  the  West,3  and  husbands  of  fourteen  or  fifteen  years  of 
age  are  not  uncommon.  Important  commands  are  also  not  unfrequently 
intrusted  to  princes  of  no  greater  age  ;  as  may  be  seen  by  the  instances 
of  Herod  the  Great,  who  was  made  governor  of  Galilee  by  his  father  at 
fifteen  ; 4  of  Alexander  Severus,  who  became  Emperor  of  Home  at 
seventeen  ;  5  and  of  many  others.  There  is  thus  nothing  unusual  in  the 
possession  of  regal  dignity,  and  an  establishment  of  wives,  on  the  part 
of  an  Oriental  prince  in  his  sixteenth  or  seventeenth  year.  If  Nabona 
dius  married  a  daughter  of  Nebuchadnezzar  as  soon  as  he  came  to  the 
throne,  and  had  a  son  born  within  the  year,  he  may  have  associated  him 


1  Page  171.  a  Dan.  v.  2. 

8  "  lie  had  now  become  a  man,"  pays  Mr,  Layard  of  a  yonng  Bedouin,  "  for  he  was 
about  fourteen  years  old."    ( JVtnereA  and  Babylon,  p.  295.) 
*  Jo8eph.  Ant.  Jud.  xiv.  9,  ?  2. 
6  Gibbon,  Decline  and  Fall,  ch.  vi.  vol.  i.  p.  182. 

(441) 


442  NOTES. 

in  the  government  when  he  was  fourteen,  which  would  have  been  in  his 
own  fifteenth  year.  This  youth  would  then,  in  the  seventeenth  and  last 
year  of  his  father's  reign,  have  entered  on  the  third  year  of  his  own 
joint  rule,  as  we  find  recorded  of  Belshazzar  in  Daniel.1 

Another  way  of  meeting  the  difficulty  has  been  suggested.  Nabona- 
dius,  it  is  said,  may  have  been  married  to  a  daughter  of  Nebuchadnez 
zar  before  he  obtained  the  crown.  It  is  only  an  inference  of  Abydenus, 
and  not  a  statement  of  Berosus,  that  he  was  entirely  unconnected  with 
Laborosoarchod.  This  is  undoubtedly  true.  But  the  inference,  which 
Abydenus  drew  from  the  text  of  Berosus,  seems  to  me  a  legitimate  one. 
Berosus,  who  has  just  noticed  the  relationship  of  Neriglissar  to  the  son 
of  Nebuchadnezzar,  whom  he  supplanted,  would  scarcely  have  failed 
to  notice  that  of  Nabonadius  to  his  grandson,  if  he  had  known  of  any 
relationship  existing.  At  any  rate  he  would  not  have  called  the  new 
king,  as  he  does,  "  a  certain  Nabonnedus  of  Babylon,"  (Na/Fon/e'fy  nvl 
T&V  tK  Ba/Mwi/o? ,)  had  he  been  the  uncle  of  the  preceding  monarch. 

My  attention  has  been  further  drawn  to  a  very  remarkable  illustra 
tion  which  the  discovery  of  Belshazzar's  position  as  joint  ruler  with  his 
father  furnishes  to  an  expression  twice  repeated  in  Daniel's  fifth  chapter. 
The  promise  made 2  and  performed 3  to  Daniel  is,  that  he  shall  be  the 
«  third  ruler"  in  the  kingdom.  Formerly  it  was  impossible  to  explain 
this,  or  to  understand  why  he  was  not  the  second  ruler,  as  he  seems  to 
have  been  under  Nebuchadnezzar,4  and  as  Joseph  was  in  Egypt,5  and 
Mordecai  in  Persia.6  It  now  appears,  that,  as  there  were  two  kings  at 
the  time,  Belshazzar,  in  elevating  Daniel  to  the  highest  position  tenable 
by  a  subject,  could  only  make  him  the  third  personage  in  the  Empire. 
This  incidental  confirmation  of  what  was  otherwise  highly  probable,  is 
a  most  valuable  and  weighty  evidence. 

1  Dan.  Tiii.  1.  2  Verse  16.  *  Verse  29. 

4  Dan.  ii.  28.  &  Gen.  xii.  41-43.  6  Esth.  x.  3. 


INDEX   OF   AUTHORS, 


SPECIFICATION  OF  THE  EDITIONS  QUOTED  OR  REFERRED  TO  IN  THE 
FOREGOING  NOTES. 


A. 

ABYDENUS,  Fragments  of,  in  C.  Mailer's  Fragm.  Hist.  Gr.  vol.  iv.  ed.  Didot, 

Paris,  1851. 

JELIAN,  Hist.  Var.  ed.  Ltinemann,  Gottingen,  1811. 
ALEXANDER  POLYHISTOR,  Fragments  of,  in  the  Fragm.  H.  Gr.  vol.  h. 

Paris,  1848. 

ALFORD,  Dean,  Greek  Testament,  London,  Rivingtons,  1849,  &c. 
AMBROSE,  S.,  Opera,  (Benedictine  Edition,)  Paris,  1686. 
APPIAN,  Opera,  ed.  Tollius,  Amsterdam,  1760. 
ARISTOTLE,  Opera,  ed.  Tauchnitz,  Leipsic,  1831,  &c. 
ARRIAN,  Exped.  Alex.  Magn.  ed.  Tauchnitz,  Leipsic,  1829. 
ARTEMIDORUS,  Oneirocritica,  Paris,  Morell,  1603. 
Asiatic  Researches,  Calcutta,  1788,  &c. 
ATHANASIUS,  S.,  Opera,  (Benedictine  Edition,)  Paris,  1698. 
AUBERLEN,   Prophecies    of   Daniel,   (translated    by   Saphir,)    Edinburgh, 

Clark,  1856. 
AUGUSTINE,  S.,  Opera,  (Benedictine  Edition,)  Antwerp,  1700. 

B. 

BARNABAS,  S.,  Epistola,  in  Cotelerius's  Patres  Apostolici  (vol.  i.),  ed.  2da, 

Amsterdam,  1724. 

BAUER,  Hebraische  Mythologie,  Leipsic,  1802. 
BAUMGARTEX,  De  Fide  Libri  Esthers,  Halce,  1839. 

BEAUFORT,  Incertitude  de  1'IIistoire  Romaine,  Utrecht,  1738. 

(443) 


444  INDEX     OF     AUTHORS. 

BENOEL,  Archiv,  Tubingen,  1816-1821. 

BEROSUS,  Fragments  of,  in  the  Fragm.  Hist.  Gr.  vol.  ii.  Paris,  1848. 

BERTHEAr,  Comment  on  Chronicles,  (translated  by  Martin,)  Edinburgh, 
Clark,  1857. 

BERTHOLDT,  Einleitung  in  sammtliche  kanonische  und  apocryphische 
Schriften  des  Alt.  und  Neu.  Test.,  Erlangen,  1812-1819. 

BIRKS,  Horse  Apostolicse,  attached  to  his  edition  of  Paley's  Horae  Paulinse, 
London,  1850. 

BOCHART,  Geographia  Sacra,  ed.  4ta,  Leyden,  1707. 

BOECKH,  Corpus  Inscriptionum  Greecarum,  Berlin,  1828-1843. 

BOUHIER,  Recherches  sur  1'histoire  d'Herodote,  Dijon,  1746. 

BRANDIS,  Rerum  Assyriarum  Temp.  Emendata,  Bonn,  1853. 

BUDDEUS,  Historia  Ecclesiastica  Veteris  Testamenti,  Hake  Magd.  1744- 
1752. 

BUNSEN,  Egypt's  Place  in  Universal  History,  (translated  by  Cockerell,)  Lon 
don,  1848,  &c. 

BUNSEN,  Hippolytus  and  his  Age,  London,  Longman,  1854. 

BUNSEN,  Philosophy  of  Universal  History,  London,  Longman,  1854. 

BURNET,  Bishop,  Letters  from  Italy  and  Switzerland  in  1685  and  1686,  Rot 
terdam,  1687. 

BURTON,  Canon,  Eccles.  History  of  the  First  Three  Centuries,  Oxford, 
Parker,  1833. 

BUTLER,  Bishop,  Analogy  of  Religion,  Oxford,  1833. 

BUTTMANN,  Mythologus,  Berlin,  1828,  1829. 

BUXTORF,  Lexicon  Hebraicum  et  Chaldaicum,  Basle,  1676. 

c. 

*. 

CALMET,  Commentaire  Litteral,  Paris,  1724-1726. 

CARPZOV,  Introductio  ad  libros  canonicos  Vet.  Test.,  Leipsic,  1721. 

CARWITHEN,  Bampton  Lectures,  Oxford,  1809. 

CASAUBON,  I.,  Exerc.  Antibaron.,  folio  edition,  London,  1614. 

CHAMPOLLION,  Precis  du  Systcme  Hieroglyphique  des  Anciens  Egyptians, 

Paris,  1828. 

CHARDIN,  Voyage  en  Perse,  Amsterdam,  1735. 
CICERO,  Opera,  ed.  Priestly,  London,  1819. 
CLEMENS' ALEX  ANDRINUS,  ed.  Potter,  Venice,  1757. 
CLEMENS  ROMANUS,  in  Jacobson's  Patres  Apostolici,  Oxford,  184Q. 
CLINTON,  Fasti  Hellenic!,  Oxford,  1830-1841. 


INDEX     OF     AUTHORS.  445 

CONBINGrUB,  Adversar.  Chronolog.  in  Gravius's  Syntagma  variarum  Disser- 
tationum  rariorum,  Ultraj.  1701. 

Constitutiones  Apostolicoe,  in  Cotelerius's  Patres  Apostolici,  (vol.  i.,)  ed.  2da. 
Amsterdam,  1724. 

CONYBEARE  and  HOWSON,  Life  and  Letters  of  St.  Paul,  London,  Long 
man,  1850. 

CORRODI,  Versuch  einer  Beleuchtung  der  Geschichte  des  jadischen  und 
christlichen  Bibelkanons,  Halle,  1792. 

CRATIPPUS,  Fragments  of,  in  the  Fragm.  Hist.  Gr.  vol.  ii.  Paris,  1848. 

CTESIAS,  Fragmenta,  ed.  Bahr,  Frankfort,  1824. 

CCRETON,  Canon,  Corpus  Ignatianum,  London,  Rivingtons,  1849. 

CYRILLUS  ALEXANDRINUS,  ed.  Aubert,  Paris,  1638. 

D. 

DAHLMANN,  Life  of  Herodotus,  (translated  by  Cox,)  London,  1845. 

DEMOSTHENES,  ed.  Dindorf,  Oxford,  1846-1849. 

DES  VIGNOLES,  Chronologie  de  1'Histoire  Sainte,  Berlin,  1738. 

DE  WETTE,  Einleitung  in  das  Alt.  Testament,  7th  edition,  Berlin,  1852. 

DE  WETTE,  translated  by  Theodore  Parker.    (See  PARKER.) 

DE  WETTE,  Archaologie,  3rd  edition,  Berlin,  1842. 

Digesta  seu  Pandecta,  Florence,  1553. 

Dio  CASSIUS,  Hist.  Roman.,  Hanover,  1606, 

Dio  CHRYSOSTOM,  ed.  Morell,  Paris,  1604. 

DIODORL-S  SICULUS,  ed.  Wesseling,  Bipont.  1793,  &c. 

DIONYSIUS  HALICARNASSUS,  folio  edition,  Oxon.  1704. 

Dius,  Fragments  of,  in  the  Fragm.  Hist.  Gr.  vol.  iv.  Paris,  1851. 

DODWELL,  Dissertat.  in  Irenaeum,  Oxford,  1689. 

E. 

FICHHORN,  Allgemeine  Bibliothek,  Leipsic,  1787-1800. 

EICHHORX,  Einleitung  in  das  Alt.  Testament,  Leipsic,  1787. 

EICHHORN,  Einleitung  in  das  Neu.  Testament,  Leipsic,  1804-1814. 

EriCTETrs,  Dissertationes,  ed.  Schweighaeuser,  Leipsic,  1796-1800. 

EriPHANius,  Opera,  ed.  Schrey  et  Meyer,  Cologne,  1682. 

ERSCH  and  GRrBER,  Algemeine  Encyclopadie  der  Wissenschaft  und  Kunst, 

Leipsic,  1818,  &c. 

EVSEBIUS,  Chronica,  ed.  Mai,  Milan,  1818. 
EUSEBIUS,  Historia  Ecclesiastica,  ed.  Burton,  Oxford,  1838. 

38 


446  INDEX     OF     AUTHORS. 

EUSEBIUS,  _  raeparatio  Evangelica,  ed.  Gaisford,  Oxford,  1843. 

EWALD,  Geschichte  des  Volkes  Israel,  2nd  edition,  Gottingen,  1851-1858. 

EWALD,  Propheten  des  Alten  Bundes,  Stuttgart,  1840. 

F. 

FABER,  Horse  Mosaicae,  Oxford,  1801. 

FEILMOSER,  Einleitung  in  die  Bucher  d.  Neues  Testaments,  Tubingen, 

1830. 

FERGUSSON,  Palaces  of  Nineveh  Restored,  London,  Murray,  1851. 
FERRIER,  General,  Caravan  Journeys,  London,  Murray,  1856. 
FORSTER,  Mahometanism  Unveiled,  London,  1829. 
FRITZSCHE,  Aechtheit  der  Bttcher  Mosis,  Rostock,  1814. 

G. 

GALEN,  Opera,  ed.  Kuhn,  Leipsic,  1821-1833. 

GEORGE,  Mythus  und  Sage,  Berlin,  1837. 

GESENIUS,  Geschichte  der  Hebraische  Sprache  und  Schrift,  Leipsic,  1815. 

GESENIUS,  Lexicon  Hebraicum,  (Engl.  Translation,)  Cambridge,  1852. 

GESENIUS,  Hebrew  Grammar,  (Engl.  Translation,)  London,  Bagster,  1846. 

GESENIUS,  Scripturae  Linguseque  Phoenicise  Monumenta,  Leipsic,  1857. 

GESENIUS,  Thesaurus  Philologicus  Ling.  Hebr.  Leipsic,  1829. 

GIBBON,  Decline  and  Fall  of  the   Roman  Empire,  3rd  edition,  London, 

1777-1788. 

GLADSTONE,  Homer  and  the  Homeric  Age,  Oxford,  1858. 
GRABE,  Spicilegium  Patrum,  editio  altera,  Oxford,  1714. 
GRAVES,  Lectures  on  the  Pentateuch,  2nd  edition,  London,  Cadell,  1815. 
GROSIER,  Description  de  la  Chine,  Paris,  1818-1820. 
GROTE,  History  of  Greece,  London,  Murray,  1846-1856. 

H. 

HALES,  Analysis  of  Chronology,  London,  1809-1812. 

HARTMANN,  Forschungen  Uber  d.  Pentateuch,  Rostock,  1831. 

HAEVERNICK,  Handbuch  des  historisch-kritischen  Einleitung  in  das  Alt. 
Testament,  Erlangen,  1837. 

HAEVERNICK,  Introduction  to  the  Old  Testament,,  (English  Translation,) 
Edinburgh,  Clark,  1852. 

HAEVERNICK,  Introduction  to  the  Pentateuch,  (English  Translation,)  Edin 
burgh,  Clark,  1850. 


INDEX     OF     AUTHORS.  447 

HECAT^EUS  ABDEIUTA,  Fragments  of,  in  the  Fragm.  Hist.  Gr.  vol.  ii. 
Paris,  1848. 

HEEREN,  Asiatic  Nations,  (English  Translation,)  Oxford,  Talboys,  1S33. 

HEEREN,  Manual  of  Ancient  History,  (English  Translation,)  Oxford,  Tal 
boys,  1833. 

HEFELE,  Patrum  Apostolicorum  Opera,  3rd  edition,  Ttlbingen,  1847. 

HENGSTENBERG,  Aegypten  und  Mose,  Berlin,  1840. 

HEXGSTENBERG,  Egypt,  &c.,  (translated  by  Mr.  Robbins,  with  additional 
notes  by  Dr.  Cooke  Taylor,)  Edinburgh,  Clark,  1845. 

HEXGSTENBERG,  Authentic  des  Daniel  und  Integritat  des  Secherias,  Ber 
lin,  1831. 

HERBST,  Historisch-kritische  Einleitung  in  d.  heilig.  Schriften  des  Alt. 
Testaments,  (published  by  Welte  after  his  decease,)  Karlsruhe,  1840-1844. 

HERMAS,  Pastor,  in  Cotelerius's  Patres  Apostolici,  (vol.  ii.,)  ed.  2da,  Am 
sterdam,  1724. 

HERMIPPUS,  Fragments  of,  in  the  Fragm.  Hist.  Gr.  vol.  iii.  Paris,  1849. 

HERODOTUS,  ed.  Bahr,  Leipsic,  1830-1835. 

HERODOTUS,  (translated  by  the  Author,)  with  copious  Notes  and  Appen 
dices,  London,  Murray,  1858-9. 

HESYCHIUS,  Lexicon,  ed.  Albert,  Leyden,  1746. 

HINCKS,  Dr.,  Translation  of  Black  Obelisk  Inscription,  in  Dublin  Univer 
sity  Magazine  for  October,  1853. 

HIERONYMUS,  Opera,  Benedictine  Edition,  Paris,  1693. 

HITZIG,  De  Cadyte  urbe  Herodotea,  Gottingen,  1829. 

HITZIG,  Zwolf  Kleinen  Propheten  erklart,  Leipsic,  1838. 

HOMER,  Iliad,  ed.  Heyne,  Leipsic,  1802. 

HOMER,  Odyssey,  ed.  LOwe,  Leipsic,  1828. 

HOOKER,  Ecclesiastical  Polity,  ed.  Keble,  Oxford,  1836. 

HOOPER,  Palmoni,  an  Essay  on  the  Chronological  and  Numerical  Systems 
of  the  Jews,  London,  Longman,  1851. 

HORXE,  Introduction  to  the  Critical  Study  and  Knowledge  of  the  Holy 
Scriptures,  6th  edition,  London,  Cadell,  1828. 

Hue,  Voyage  dans  la  Tartarie,  Paris,  1853. 

HUSSEY,  Sermons  mostly  Academical,  Oxford,  Parker,  1849. 

I.      J. 

JABLONSKY,  Opuscula,  Leyden,  1804. 

JACKSON,  Chronological  Antiquities,  London,  1752. 


448  INDEX     OF     AUTHORS. 

JAHN,  Aechtheit  des  Pentateuch,  in  Bengel's  Archiv,  (vol.  iii.  part  i.,)  Ta- 

bingen,  1816-1821. 

JAHN,  Einleitung  in  das  alte  Testament,  Vienna,  1792. 
IGNATIUS,  S.,  in  Jacobson's  Patres  Apostolici,  (vol.  ii.,) 'Oxford,  1840. 
Inscription,  Behistun,  in  the  Author's  Herodotus,  vol.  ii.  (See  HERODOTUS.) 
Inscription  of  Tiglath-Pileser  I.,  as  translated  by  Sir  Henry  Rawlinson,  Mr. 

Fox  Talbot,  Dr.  Hincks,  and  Dr.  Oppert,  published  by  Royal  Asiatic 

Society  ;  London,  Parker,  1857. 
Inscription,  Nebuchadnezzar's  Standard,  in  the  Author's  Herodotus,  vol. 

iii.    (See  HERODOTUS.) 

Inscription  on  the  Nimrud  Obelisk,  translated  by  Dr.  Hincks.  (See  HINCKS.) 
Inscriptions  of  three  Assyrian  Kings,  translated  by  Mr.  Fox  Talbot.     (See 

TALBOT.) 

Inscriptiones  Grsecae,  BOckh's  Corpus  Ins.  Gr.     (See  BOECKH.) 
JOSEPHUS,  Opera,  ed.  Havercamp,  Amsterdam,  &c.,  1726. 
JOSEPHUS,  translated  by  Dr.  Traill,  with  notes  and  essays,  published  in 

parts,  London,  1847. 

IRENJEUS,  Advers.  Hsereses,  ed.  W.  W.  Harvey,  Cambridge,  1857. 
Itinerarium  Antoninum,  in  Bertius's  Ptolemy.     (See  PTOLEMY.) 
JUSTIN,  Epitome  of  Trogus  Pompeius,  ed.  Gronovius,  Leyden,  1760. 
JUSTIN  MARTYR,  Opera,  Hague,  1742. 
JUVENAL,  ed.  Ruperti,  Leipsic,  1819-1820. 

K. 

KALISCH,  Historical  and  Critical  Commentary,  English  edition,  London, 
Longman,  1855,  &c. 

KAYE,  Bishop,  Account  of  the  Writings  and  Opinions  of  Justin  Martyr, 
3rd  edition,  London,  Rivingtons,  1853. 

KAYE,  Bishop,  Ecclesiastical  History  of  the  Second  and  Third  Centuries, 
illustrated  from  the  Writings  of  Tertullian,  2nd  edition,  Cambridge,  1829. 

KEIL,  Commentar  Uber  das  Buch  Josua,  Erlangen,  1847. 

KEIL,  Commentary  on  Joshua,  (translated  by  Martin,)  Edinburgh,  Clark, 
1857. 

KEIL,  Apologetischer  Versuch  Ober  die  Bucher  der  Chronik,  Berlin,  1833. 

KEIL,  Commentar  Uber  die  Bttcher  der  KOnige,  Berlin,  1846. 

KEIL,  Commentary  on  the  Books  of  Kings,  (translated  by  Murphy,)  Edin 
burgh,  Clark,  1857. 

KENRICK,  Ancient  Egypt  under  the  Pharaohs,  London,  1850. 


INDEX     OF     AUTHORS.  449 

KEXRICK,  Phoenicia,  London,  1855. 

KER  PORTER,  Sir  R.,  Travels,  London,  Longman,  1821-1822. 

KITTO,  Biblical  Cyclopaedia,  (Burgess's  edition,)  Edinburgh,  Black,  1856. 

KNOBEL,  Der  Prophetismus  der  Hebraer,  Breslau,  1837. 

KUGLER,  Handbuch  der  Kunstgeschichte,  Stuttgart,  1842. 

L. 

LACROZE,  Lexicon  JEgyptiaco-Latinum,  Oxford,  1775. 

LARCHER,  Histoire  d'Herodote,  Paris,  1786. 

LARDXER,  Dr.,  Credibility  of  the  Gospel  History,  Works,  London,  1815. 

L'Art  de  verifier  les  Dates,  8vo  edition,  Paris,  1819-1844. 

LAYARD,  Nineveh  and  its  Remains,  London,  Murray,  1849. 

LAYARD,  Nineveh  and  Babylon,  London,  Murray,  1853. 

LEE,  Dr.,  Inspiration  of  Holy  Scripture,  2nd  edition,  London,  Riving- 
tons,  18.57. 

LEPSIUS,  Dr.,  Lettre  sur  1' Alphabet  Hieroglyphique,  Rome,  1837. 

LEWIS,  Sir  G.  C.,  Credibility  of  Early  Roman  History,  London,  Parker,  1855. 

LEWIS,  Sir  G.  C.,  Methods  of  Observation  and  Reasoning  in  Politics,  Lon 
don,  Parker,  1852. 

LIGIITFOOT,  Dr.,  Works,  folio  edition,  London,  1684. 

LIVY,  ed.  Tvviss,  Oxford,  Talboys,  1840. 

LOBECK,  Aglaophamus,  Regimont,  1829. 

LOFTUS,  Chaldaca  and  Susiana,  London,  Nisbet,  1857. 

LoxGixrs,  De  Sublimitate,  Edinburgh,  1733. 

LUCIAN,  Opera,  ed.  Hemsterhuis,  Bipont.  1789,  &c. 

LYELL,  Sir  C.,  Principles  of  Geology,  4th  edition,  London,  Murray,  1835. 

LYNCH,  Capt.,  Narrative  of  the  United  States'  Expedition  to  the  River  Jor 
dan  and  the  Dead  Sea,  London,  Bentley,  1852. 

LYSIMACHUS,  Fragments  of,  in  the  Fragm.  Hist.  Gr.  vol.  iii.  Paris,  1849. 

M. 

MACBRIDE,  Dr.,  Mohammedan  Religion  Explained,  London,  1857. 
MACROBIUS,  Saturnalia,  ed.  Gronovius,  Leyden,  1670. 
MAITLAND,  Dr.,  The  Church  in  the  Catacombs,  London,  Longman,  1846. 
MANETHO,  Fragments  of,  in  the  Fragm.  Hist.  Gr.  vol.  iii.  Paris,  1849. 
MANSEL,  Bampton  Lectures  for  1858,  London,  Murray,  1858. 
MARCHI,  Monument!  delle  Arti  Cristiane  primitive  nella  Metropoli  del 
Cristianesimo,  Rome,  1844. 

38* 


450  INDEX     OF     AUTHORS. 

MARSH,  Bishop,  Authenticity  of  the  Five  Books  of  Moses,  in  his  Lectures 

on  Divinity,  London,  1810-1823. 

MARSHAM,  Canon  Chronicus,  folio  edition,  London,  1672. 
MARTYRIUM  IGNATII,  in  Jacobson's  Patres  Apostolici,  (vol.  ii.,)  Oxford, 

1840. 

Memoires  de  1'Academie  des  Inscriptions,  Paris,  1729,  &c. 
MENANDER,  Fragments  of,  in  the  Fragm.  Hist.  Gr.  vol.  iv.  Paris,  1851. 
MICHAELIS,  J.  D.,  Orientalische  und  exegetische  BibliotheJc,  Frankfort, 

1771-1783. 

MICHELL,  Bampton  Lectures  for  1849,  Oxford,  Parker,  1849. 
MINUCIUS  FELIX,  Octavius,  Oxford,  1627. 
MOSES  CHORENENSIS,  Armenian  History,  ed.  Whiston,  (Armenian  and 

Latin,)  London,  1736. 

MOSHEIM,  Historia  Ecclesiastica,  editio  altera,  Helmstadt,  1764. 
MOSHEIM,  De  rebus  ante  Constantin.  Magn.  gestis,  Helmstadt,  1753. 
MOVERS,  Die  PhOnizier,  Berlin,  1849,  &c. 
MUELLER,  C.  0.,  History  of  Greek  Literature,  completed  by  Dr.  Donaldson, 

London,  Parker,  1858. 

MURATORI,  Antiquitates  Italicae  Medii  2Evi,  Milan,  1740. 
MURE,  Col.,  Literature  of  Ancient  Greece,  London,  Longman,  1850,  &c. 
MURE,  Col.,  Remarks  on  Two  Appendices  to  Mr.  Grote's  History  of  Greece, 

London,  Longman,  1851. 

N. 

NEANDER,  Allgemeine  Geschichte  d.  Christliche  Religion  und  Kirche,  4th 

edition,  Hamburg,  1847,  &c. 
NEUMANN,  Versuch  einer  Geschichte  der  Armenisch.  Literatur,  Leipsic, 

1836. 

NEWMAN,  F.,  History  of  the  Hebrew  Monarchy,  London,  Chapman,  1847. 
NEWMAN,  J.  H.,  The  Arians  of  the  Fourth  Century,  London,  Rivingtons, 

1833. 

NEWMAN,  J.  II.,  Essay  on  Miracles,  Oxford,  Parker,  1843. 
NEWTON,  Sir  I.,  Chronology  of  Ancient  Kingdoms  amended,  London,  1728. 
NICOLAUS  DAMASCENUS,  Fragments  of,  in  the  Fragm.  Hist.  Gr.  vol.  iii. 

Paris,  1849. 
NIEBUHR,  B.  G  ,  History  of  Rome,  (Hare  and  Thirlwall's  translation,) 

Cambridge,  1831-1842. 
NIEBUHR,  B.  G.,  Kleine  Schriften.  Bonn,  1828. 


INDEX     OF     AUTHORS.  451 

NIEBUHR,  B.  G.,  Lectures  on  Ancient  History,  (translated  by  Dr.  Schmitz.) 

London,  1852. 

NIEBUHR,  B.  G.,  Life  and  Letters  of,  London,  Chapman,  1852. 
NIEBUHR,  B.  G.,  Vortrage  tlber  Alte  Geschichte,  Berlin,  Reimer,  1847. 
NIEBUHR,  MARCUS,  Geschichte  Assurs  und  Babels  seit  Phul,  Berlin,  1857. 
NORTHCOTE,  J.  SPENCER,  The  Roman  Catacombs,  second  edition,  London, 

1859. 
NORTON,  Professor,  Evidences  of  the  Genuineness  of  the  Gospels,  2nd 

edition,  London,  Chapman,  1847. 

0. 

OCKLEY,  Life  of  Mohammed,  in  his  History  of  the  Saracens,  London, 
Bohn,  1847. 

OFFERHAUS,  Spicilegia  Historico-Chronologica,  Groningae,  1739. 

OLSHAUSEN,  Biblischer  Commentar  ttber  sammtl.  Schriften  d.  Neuen  Testa 
ments,  3rd  edition,  KOnigsberg,  1837. 

OLSHAUSEN,  Commentary  on  the  Gospels,  (translated  by  Fosdick,)  3rd  edi 
tion,  Edinburgh,  Clark,  1857. 

OPPERT,  Dr.,  Rapport  d'une  Mission  scientifique  en  Angleterre,  Paris, 
1856. 

ORIGEN,  Opera,  Benedictine  edition,  Paris,  1733-1759. 

OROSIUS,  Historia  adv.  Paganos,  Cologne,  1536. 

OVID,  ed.  Soc.  Bipontina,  Strasburg,  1807. 

P. 

PALEY,  Evidences  of  Christianity,  25th  edition,  Glasgow,  1816. 

PALEY,  Horse  Paulinae  ;  Works,  edited  by  Rev.  R.  Lynam,  vol.  i.  London, 
1828. 

PARKER,  THEODORE,  Enlarged  Translation  of  De  Wette's  Einleitung  in  das 
Alt.  Test.,  Boston,  1843. 

PATRICK,  Bishop,  Commentary  on  the  Historical  Books  of  the  Old  Testa 
ment,  4th  edition,  London,  1732. 

PAUSANIUS,  ed.  Siebelis,  Leipsic,  1822. 

PEARSON,  Vindiciae  Epistolarum  S.  Ignatii,  Cambridge,  1672. 

PERIZONIUS,  Origiues  Babylonicao  et  ^Egyptiacae,  editio  altera,  Dukcr, 
Utrecht,  1736. 

PERRET,  Les  Catacombes  de  Rome,  folio,  6  volumes,  Paris,  Gide,  1851-1855. 

PETRONIUS  ARBITER,  ed.  Burmann,  Utrecht,  1709. 


452  INDEX     OP     AUTHORS. 

PHILO  JUDJEUS,  ed.  Hoeschel,  Frankfort,  1691. 

PHILOSTRATUS,  ed.  Olearius,  Leipsic,  1709. 

PHOTIUS,  Bibliotheca,  ed.  Hoeschel,  Rouen,  1653. 

PLATO,  Phaedo,  ed.  Stanford,  Dublin,  1834. 

PLINY,  Hist.  Nat.,  (ex  Officiis  Hack.,)  Leyden  and  Rotterdam,  1669. 

PLINY  the  younger,  Epistolae,  ed.  Cortius,  Amsterdam,  1734. 

PLUTARCH,  Opera,  ed.  A.  Stephanus,  Paris,  1624. 

POLYBIUS,  ed.  Schweighseuser,  Oxford,  Baxter,  1823. 

POLYCAKP,  Epist.,  in  Jacobson's  Patres  Apostolici,  (vol.  ii.,)  Oxford,  1840. 

POOLE,  R.  STUART,  Horse  JEgyptiacae,  London,  Murray,  1851. 

POWELL,  Professor,  Order  of  Nature  considered  in  reference  to  the  Claims 

of  Revelation,  a  Third  Series  of  Essays,  London,  Longman,  1859. 
PRICIIARD,  Dr.,  Physical  History  of  Mankind,  3rd  edition,  London,  1836. 
PRICHARD,  Dr.,  Historical  Records  of  Ancient  Egypt,  London,  1838. 
PRIDEAUX,  Dr.,  Connection  of  the  History  of  the  Old  and  New  Testament, 

4th  edition,  London,  1718. 

PROCOPIUS,  Opera,  in  the  Corpus  Hist.  Byz.,  ed.  Dindorf,  Bonn,  1833-1838. 
PTOLEMY,  Geograph.,  ed.  Bertius,  Amsterdam,  1618. 
PTOLEMY,  Magna  Syntaxis,  Basle,  1538. 

R. 

RASK,  Professor,  Egyptian  Chronology,  in  Prichard's  Records  of  Ancient 

Egypt.    (See  PRICHARD.) 
RAVLINSON,  Sir  H.  C.,  Memoir  on  the  Persian  Cuneiform  Inscriptions, 

published  by  the  Royal  Asiatic  Society,  London,  Parker,  1846-1849. 
RAWLINSON,  Sir  H.  C.,  Commentary  on  the  Inscriptions  of  Assyria  and 

Babylon,  London,  Parker,  1850. 
RATVLINSON,  Sir  H.  C.,  Notes  en  the  Early  History  of  Babylonia,  in  the 

Journal  of  the  Royal  Asiatic  Society,  vol.  xv.  part  ii.  London,  Parker, 

1856. 
RAWLINSON,  Sir  H.  S.,  Notes  and  Essays  in  the  Author's  Herodotus.   (See 

HERODOTUS.) 

REMUSAT,  Nouveaux  Melanges  Asiatiques,  Paris,  1829. 
RENNELL,  Geography  of  Herodotus,  4to  edition,  London,  1800. 
ROSELLINI,  Monument!  dell'  Egitto,  parte  prima,  monumenti  storici,  Pisa, 

1832-1841. 

RORF.XMUELLER,  Scholia  in  Vet.  Test.,  Leipsic,  1821,  &c. 
Rossi,  Etymologise  JEgyptiacse,  Rome,  1808. 


INDEX     OP     AUTHORS.  453 

S. 

SCALIGER,  De  Emendatione  Temporum,  folio,  Geneva,  1629. 

SENECA,  ed.  Elzevir,  Amsterdam,  1672. 

SIMPLICIUS,  Comment,  ad  Aristot.  De  Coelo,  folio,  Venice,  1526. 

SMITH,  Dr.  W.,  Dictionary  of  Greek  and  Roman  Antiquities,  2nd  edition, 
London,  1853. 

SMITH,  Dr.  "W.,  Dictionary  of  Greek  and  Roman  Biography,  London,  1850. 

SMITH,  Dr.  W.,  Dictionary  of  Greek  and  Roman  Geography,  London,  1854. 

SMITH,  G.  VANCE,  Prophecies  relating  to  Nineveh,  London,  Longman,  1857. 

SOCRATES,  Hist.  Ecclesiastica,  Cambridge,  1720. 

SOPHOCLES,  ed.  Valpy,  London,  1824. 

SPANHEIM,  Introductio  ad  Chronologiam  et  Historiam  Sacram,  Amster 
dam,  1694. 

SPINOZA,  Tractatus  theologo-politicus,  2nd  edition,  (no  place  or  publisher's 
name,)  1674. 

STACKHOUSE,  History  of  the  Bible,  Gleig's  edition,  London,  Longman,  1817. 

STANLEY,  Professor,  Sinai  and  Palestine,  London,  Murray,  1856. 

STATIUS,  pocket  edition,  Amsterdam,  1624. 

STRABO,  ed.  Kramer,  Berlin,  1847-1852. 

STRAUSS,  Leben  Jesu,  4th  edition,  Tubingen,  1840. 

STRAUSS,  The  Life  of  Jesus,  translated  into  English,  London,  Chapman,  1846. 

STUART,  Professor,  History  and  Defence  of  the  Old  Testament  Canon,  ed 
ited  by  the  Rev.  P.  Lorimer,  London,  1849. 

SUETONIUS,  ed.  Baumgarten-Crusius,  Leipsic,  1816. 

SUIDAS,  Lexicon,  ed.  Gaisford,  Oxford,  1834. 

SYNCELLUS,  in  the  Corpus  Hist.  Byzant.,  ed.  Dindorf,  Bonn,  1829. 

T. 

TACITUS  (Brotier's),  ed.  Valpy,  London,  Whittaker,  1823. 

TALBOT,  H.  Fox,  Assyrian  Texts  translated,  London,  1856. 

TATIAN,  Oratio  adv.  Graecos,  (with  Justin  Martyr,)  Hague,  1742. 

TAYLOR,  Transmission  of  Ancient  Books,  London,  1859. 

TERTULLIAN,  Opera,  ed.  Rigaltius,  Paris,  1675. 

TERTULLIAN,  Bishop  Kaye's,  Ecclesiastical  Hist.,  illustrated  from  Tertul- 

lian.     (See  KAYE.) 

THEILE,  Zur  biographie  Jesu,  Leipsic,  1837. 
THEOPIIILUS,  ad  Autolycum,  (with  Justin  Martyr,)  Hague,  1742. 


454  INDEX     OF     AUTHORS. 

THUCYDIDES,  ed.  Bekker,  Oxford,  Parker,  1824. 

TRENCH,  Dean,  Notes  on  the  Miracles,  London,  Parker,  1846. 

V. 

VALERIUS  MAXIMUS,  Leyden,  1670. 

VATER,  Commentar  ttber  den  Pentateuch,  Halle,  1802-1806. 

VATKE,   Religion  des  Alt.  Testaments  nach  den  kanonischen  Buchern 

entwickelt,  Berlin,  1835. 

Vestiges  of  Creation,  10th  edition,  London,  1853. 
VITRINGA,  Observations  Sacroe,  Franequerte,  1711,  1712. 
VITRUVIUS,  ed.  De  Laet,  Amsterdam,  Elzevir,  1649. 
VON  BOHLEN,  Alte  Indien,  Konigsberg,  1830. 
VON  LENGERKE,  Kenaan,  Konigsberg,  1844. 
VON  LENGERKE,  Das  Buch  Daniel,  Konigsberg,  1835. 

w. 

"WETSTEIN,  Nov.  Testament.  Grsecum,  Amsterdam,  1751,  1752. 
WHISTON,  Short  View  of  the  Harmony  of  the  four  Evangelists,  Cambridge, 

1702. 

WHITE,  Bampton  Lectures  for  1784,  Oxford,  1784. 
"WILKINSON,  Sir  G.,  Ancient  Egyptians,  London,  Murray,  1837-1841. 
WILKINSON,  Sir  G.,  Notes  and  Essays  in  the  Author's  Herodotus.    (See 

HERODOTUS.) 
WILSON,  Professor  H.  H.,  Translations  from  Rig-Veda-Sanhita,  London, 

1850. 

WINER,  Biblisches  RealwOrterbuch,  3rd  edition,  Leipsic,  1847,  1848. 
WOOLLSTON,  Six  Discourses  on  the  Miracles  of  our  Saviour,  London,  1727- 

1729. 

X. 

XENOPHON,  Opera,  ed.  Schneider  et  Dindorf,  Oxford,  1817,  &c. 


THE    END. 


PUBLISHED     BY 

O  O  U  L  D     AND     LINCOLN. 

69  WASHINGTON    STREET,  BOSTON. 


CHRISTIAN'S  DAILY   TREASURY:  a  Religious  Exercise  for  every  day 
iu  the  year.    By  Rev.  E.  TEMPLE.    12mo,  cloth.    $1.00. 

WREATH  AROUND   THE  CROSS;   or,  Scripture  Truths  Illustrated.    By 
Rev.  A.  MORTON  BROWN,  D.  D.    16rao,  cloth.    60  cents. 

SCHOOL  OF  CHRIST;  or,  Christianity  Viewed  in  its  Leading  Aspects.    By 
REV.  A.  R.  L.  FOOTE.    16mo,  cloth.    50  cents. 

THE  CHRISTIAN  LIFE,  Social  and  Individual.    By  PETER  BAYNE,  M.  A. 
12mo,  cloth.    $1.25. 

THE  PURITANS;   or,  The  Church,  Court,  and  Parliament  of  England.    By 
Rev.  SAMUEL  HOPKINS.    In  3  vols.,  octavo.    Vol.  I.,  cloth,  ready.     $2.50. 

MODERN  A  THEISM;  under  its  various  forms.  By  JAMES  BUCHANAN,  D.D. 
12mo,  cloth.    $1.25. 

THE  MISSION  OF  THE  COMFORTER ;  with  copious  Notes.    By  JULIUS 
CHARLES  HAUE.    American  edition;  Notes  translated.    12mo,  cloth.   $1.25. 

GOD  REVEALED  IN  NATURE  AND  IN  CHRIST.    By  Rev.  JAMES 
B.  WALKER.    12mo,  cloth    $1.00. 

PHILOSOPHY  OF  THE  PLAN  OF  SALVATION.     New,  improved, 
and  enlarged  edition.    12mo,  cloth.    75  cents. 

YAHVEH  CHRIST;    or,  The  Memorial  Name.    By  ALEX'R  MACWHORTER. 
Introductory  Letter  by  NATH'L  W.  TAYLOR,  D.D.    12mo,  cloth.    60  cents. 

SALVATION  BY  CHRIST:   Discourses  on  some  of  the  most  important 
Doctrines  of  the  Gospel.    By  FRANCIS  WAYLAND,  D  D.    12mo,  cloth.    $1.00. 

777^  SUFFERING  SAVIOUR;  or,  Meditations  on  the  Last  Days  of  Christ. 
By  FREDERICK  W.  KRUMMACHKR,  D.  D.    12mo,  cloth.    $1.25. 

THE  GREAT  DAY  OF  ATONEMENT;   or,  Meditations  and  Prayers  on 
the  Sufferings  and  Death  of  our  Lord.    75  cents. 

EXTENT   OF  THE  ATONEMENT  IN  ITS   RELATION    TO    GOD 
AND  THE  UNIVERSE.    By  THOMAS  W.  JENKYN,  D.D.   12mo,  cloth.   $1.00. 

THE   IMITATION  OF  CHRIST.    By  THOMAS  A  KEMPIS.     With  a  Life 
of  a  Kempis,  by  Dr.  C.  ULLMANN.    12mo,  cloth.    85  cents 

LECTURES  ON  THE  LORD'S  PRAYER.    By  WILLIAM  R.  WILLIAMS, 

D.  D.    12mo,  cloth.    85  cents. 

RELIGIOUS  PROGRESS.    By  W.R. WILLIAMS,  D.D.  12mo.  cloth.    85  cts. 
THE  BETTER  LAND;   By  Rev.  A.  C.  THOMPSON.    12mo,  cloth.    85  cents. 

EVENING    OF  LIFE;    or,  Light  and  Comfort  amid  the  Shadows  of  Declin 
ing  Years.    By  JEREMIAH  CHAPLIN,  D.  D.    12mo.  cloth.     $1.00. 

HEAVEN.     By  JAMES  WILLIAM  KIMBALL.    12mo,  cloth.    $1.00. 

THE  SAINTS  REST.     By  RICHARD  BAXTER.    IGmo.  cloth.    50  centg. 


anir 


THE  HARVEST  AND  THE  REAPERS.  Home  Work  for  all,  and  how 
to  do  it.  By  Rev.  HARVEY  NEWCOMB.  16mo,  cloth.  63  cents. 

FIRST  THINGS;  or,  the  Development  of  Christian  Life.  By  BARON  STOW, 
D.  D.  16mo,  cloth.  60  cents. 

CHRISTIAN  BROTHERHOOD.     By  B.  STOW,  D.  D.    16mo,  cloth.   50  cts. 

LIMITS    OF    RELIGIOUS    THOUGHT  EXAMINED.     By  HENRY  L. 

MANSEL,  B.D.    NOTES  translated  for  American  edition.    12mo,  cloth.  $1.00. 
THE    CRUCIBLE;  or,  Tests  of  a  Regenerate  State.    By  Rev.  J.  A.GOODHUE. 

Introduction  by  Dr.  KIRK.    12mo,  cloth.    $1.00. 
LEADERS    OF   THE    REFORMATION.      Luther  —  Calvin  —  Latimer  — 

Knox.    By  JOHN  TULLOCH,  D.  D.    12mo,  cloth.    $1.00. 

JOHN  AN  G  ELL  JAMES.    CHURCH  MEMBER'S  GUIDE.    Cloth.    33  cts. 
.  _  .  _   CHURCH  IN  EARNEST.    18mo,  cloth.    40  cts. 

.  _  _  _    CHRISTIAN  PROGRESS.    Sequel  to  the  Anxi 

ous  Inquirer.    18mo,  cloth.    31  cents. 
THE   GREAT  CONCERN.     By  N.  ADAMS,  D.  D.    12mo,  cloth.    85  cents. 

JOHN  HARRIS'S  WORKS.  THE  GREAT  TEACHER.  With  an  Intro 
ductory  Essay  by  H.  HUMPHREY,  D.  D.  12mo,  cloth.  85  cents. 

•  -  THE  GREAT  COMMISSION.  With  an  In 

troductory  Essay  by  WILLIAM  R.  WILLIAMS,  D.  D.  12mo,  cloth.  $1.00. 

.  _      THE   PRE-ADAMITE   EARTH.     Contribu 


tions  to  Theological  Science.    12mo,  cloth.    $1.00. 

MAN  PRIMEVAL:    Constitution  and  Prim 


itive  Condition  of  the  Human  Being.    Portrait  of  Author.  12mo,  cloth.   $1.25. 
PATRIARCHY;  or,  The  Family,  its  Constitu 


tion  and  Probation.  •  12mo,  cloth.    $1.25. 
SERMONS,    CHARGES,   ADDRESSES,   fe. 


Two  volumes,  octavo,  cloth.    $1.00  each. 

HUGH  MILLER'S  WORKS.      TESTIMONY   OF    THE    ROCKS.     With 

Illustrations.    12mo,  cloth.    $1.25. 
. FOOTPRINTS  OF  THE  CREATOR.    With 

Illustrations.    Memoir  by  Louis  AGASSIZ.    12mo,  cloth.    $1.00. 
THE   OLD  RED   SANDSTONE.     With  Il 


lustrations,  etc.    12mo,  cloth.    $1.25. 
MY  SCHOOLS  AND   SCHOOLMASTERS. 


An  Autobiography.    Full-length  Portrait  of  Author.    12mo,  cloth.    $1.00. 

FIRST     IMPRESSIONS     OF    ENGLAND 


AND  ITS  PEOPLE.    12mo,  cloth.    $1  00. 
. CRUISE    OF    THE    LETSEY.     A   Ramble 


among  the  Fossiliferous  Deposits  of  the  Hebrides.    12mo,  cloth.    $1.25. 

POPULAR   GEOLOGY.    12mo,  cloth.   $1.25. 


HUGH  MILLER'S    WORKS.     7  vols.    Elegant  embossed  cloth.    $8.25. 


CIRCULATION  DEPARTMENT 

909  Main  Librar 


LOAN  PERIOD  1 
HOME  USE 


Books  may 


be  Renewed  by  coll.ng     642-3405. 


C1BG' 


FORM  NO.  DD6 


BERKELEY,  CA  94720 


U.C.  BERKELEY  LIBRARIES 


1 


UNIVERSITY  OF  CAUFORNIA  LIBRARY 


